Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary No Shipment Determination, 21724-21733 [2012-8381]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21724-21733]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8381]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-840]


Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary No Shipment 
Determination

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

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the petitioners and three 
producers/exporters of the subject merchandise, the Department of 
Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain orange juice (OJ) from Brazil with 
respect to four producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the 
United States. This is the fifth period of review (POR), covering March 
1, 2010, through February 28, 2011.

[[Page 21725]]

    We have preliminarily determined that sales to the United States 
have been made below normal value (NV), and, therefore, are subject to 
antidumping duties. If these preliminary results are adopted in the 
final results of this review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries.

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Wiltse or Hector Rodriguez, 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-
6345 or (202) 482-0629, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    In March 2006, the Department published in the Federal Register an 
antidumping duty order on OJ from Brazil.\1\ Subsequently, on March 1, 
2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on OJ from Brazil for the period March 1, 2010, through February 
28, 2011.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Orange Juice from 
Brazil, 71 FR 12183 (Mar. 9, 2006) (OJ Order).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 11197 (Mar. 1, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), in March 2011, the 
Department received requests to conduct an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on OJ from Brazil from three producers/exporters 
of the subject merchandise: Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and 
Agricultura (Fischer); Louis Dreyfus Commodities Agroindustrial S.A. 
(Louis Dreyfus); and Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale). In its 
request for review, Louis Dreyfus claimed that it is the successor-in-
interest to a former producer/exporter of OJ, Coinbra Frutesp S.A. 
(Coinbra Frutesp).
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), also in March 2011, the 
Department received requests to conduct an administrative review for 
Cutrale and Fischer from the petitioners (Florida Citrus Mutual and 
Citrus World, Inc.) and Southern Gardens Citrus Processing Corporation 
(Southern Gardens), a domestic interested party. Additionally, in March 
2011, Southern Gardens requested that the Department also conduct an 
administrative review for Coinbra Frutesp and Montecitrus Trading S.A. 
(Montecitrus).
    In April 2011, the Department initiated an administrative review 
for all five companies (i.e., Cutrale, Coinbra Frutesp, Fischer, Louis 
Dreyfus, and Montecitrus).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 23546 (Apr. 27, 2011) (Initiation 
Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In May 2011, we solicited information from Louis Dreyfus regarding 
its claim that it is the successor-in-interest to Coinbra Frutesp. 
Louis Dreyfus supplied this information in the same month. Also in May 
2011, we received a statement from Montecitrus that it had no shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and we 
issued questionnaires to Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus.
    In May and June 2011, we received responses to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire (i.e., the section related to general 
information), as well as responses to sections B and C of the 
questionnaire (i.e., the sections covering sales in the home market and 
United States) from Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus. We also 
received responses from Cutrale and Fischer to section D of the 
questionnaire (i.e., the section covering cost of production (COP) and 
constructed value (CV)) in June 2011.
    In July 2011, the petitioners filed a company-specific sales-below-
cost allegation for Louis Dreyfus. The Department initiated a sales-
below-cost investigation for Louis Dreyfus in this month, and we 
instructed Louis Dreyfus to respond to section D of the Department's 
questionnaire. See the July 29, 2011, memorandum from the team to James 
Maeder entitled, ``The Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost 
of Production for Louis Dreyfus Commodities Agroindustrial S.A.'' 
(Louis Dreyfus Cost Investigation Memo). In August 2011, we received 
Louis Dreyfus' response to section D of the questionnaire.
    From August 2011 through March 2012, we issued supplemental sales 
and cost questionnaires to Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus. We also 
issued a supplemental successor-in-interest questionnaire to Louis 
Dreyfus in August 2011. We received responses to these supplemental 
questionnaires from September 2011 through March 2012.
    On October 21, 2011, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of this review until no later than March 30, 
2012.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Notice of Extension of 
Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 76 FR 65496, 65497 (Oct. 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 23, 2012, the petitioners filed a targeted dumping 
allegation against Cutrale and requested that the Department consider 
this allegation in the event that it determines to apply in this 
administrative review the Final Modification dumping margin calculation 
methodology it published on February 14, 2012.\5\ \6\ Cutrale filed a 
response to the petitioners' targeting dumping allegation on March 26, 
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted 
Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping 
Duty Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (Feb. 14, 2012). 
(Final Modification).
    \6\ We note that we did not apply the Final Modification dumping 
margin calculation methodology for purposes of these preliminary 
results. Per the Final Modification, the new methodology will be 
applied in reviews for which the preliminary results are scheduled 
to be issued more than 60 days after the date of publication of the 
Final Modification, (i.e., April 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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,\7\ Cutrale, 
Fischer, and Montecitrus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As discussed below, we preliminarily find that Louis Dreyfus 
is the successor-in-interest to Coinbra Frutesp. See the 
``Successor-in Interest'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 21726]]

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.

Successor-in-Interest

    In making a normal successor-in-interest determination, the 
Department examines several factors including, but not limited to, 
changes in: (1) Management; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier 
relationships; and (4) customer base. See Notice of Final Results of 
Changed Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: 
Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58 (Jan. 2, 2002), and Brass 
Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 (May 13, 1992). Although no one of 
these factors is dispositive, the Department will generally consider 
the new company to be the successor to the previous company if its 
resulting operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its 
predecessor. See Industrial Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (Feb. 14, 
1994); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (Jan. 13, 2006).
    As noted above, in its request for a review, Louis Dreyfus claimed 
that it is the successor-in-interest to Coinbra Frutesp. As a result, 
on May 2, 2011, we requested that Louis Dreyfus address the four 
factors noted above (i.e., management, production facilities for the 
subject merchandise, supplier relationships, and customer base) in 
order to determine whether Louis Dreyfus is indeed the successor-in-
interest to Coinbra Frutesp.
    On May 24, 2011, Louis Dreyfus submitted its response to the 
Department's request. In this submission, Louis Dreyfus provided 
evidence that Coinbra Frutesp Agroinstrial Ltda. (Coinbra Frutesp Ag.), 
the wholly owned subsidiary of Coinbra Frutesp and producer of subject 
merchandise, underwent a series of corporate restructurings, including 
changes to the company's name. According to Louis Dreyfus, these name 
changes had no effect on the company's operations. Louis Dreyfus 
explained that there were no significant changes to Coinbra Frutesp 
Ag's management, production facilities for the subject merchandise, 
supplier relationships, or customer base as a result of the change in 
corporate structure.
    On August 22, 2011, we asked further questions and requested 
additional documentation from Louis Dreyfus to support its statements 
that the name changes did not affect its management, production 
facilities, supplier relationships, and customer base. Louis Dreyfus 
provided this information on September 13, 2011.
    Based on our analysis of Louis Dreyfus' May 24, 2011, and September 
13, 2011, submissions, we preliminarily find that Coinbra Frutesp Ag's 
organizational structure, management, production facilities, supplier 
relationships, and customers have remained largely unchanged from the 
time of the OJ order. Further, we preliminarily find that Louis Dreyfus 
operates as the same business entity as Coinbra Frutesp Ag with respect 
to the production and sale of OJ. Thus, we preliminarily find that 
Louis Dreyfus is the successor-in-interest to Coinbra Frutesp and, as a 
consequence, the Department finds Louis Dreyfus' U.S. sales of FCOJ 
would be subject merchandise in this proceeding.\8\ For further 
discussion, see the March 30, 2012, memorandum to James Maeder, Office 
Director, from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, entitled, 
``Successor-In-Interest Determination for Coinbra Frutesp S.A./Coinbra 
Frutesp Agroindustrial Ltda. and Louis Dreyfus Commodities 
Agroindustrial S.A. in the 2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Louis Dreyfus reported making only U.S. sales of NFC during 
the POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    As noted in the ``Background'' section above, Montecitrus indicated 
that it had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. The Department subsequently confirmed with CBP the no-
shipment claim made by Montecitrus. Because the evidence on the record 
indicates that Montecitrus did not export subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR, we preliminarily determine that 
Montecitrus did not have any reviewable transactions during the POR.
    Since the implementation of the 1997 regulations, our practice 
concerning no-shipment respondents had been to rescind the 
administrative review if the respondent certifies that it had no 
shipments and we have confirmed through our examination of CBP data 
that there were no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 
1997). As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instruct 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, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, 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).
    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 Montecitrus, and exported 
by other parties, at the all-others rate. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal 
From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in 
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 (Sept. 17, 2010). 
In addition, the Department finds 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 
Montecitrus and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the 
final results of the review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of 
this notice below.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of OJ by Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis 
Dreyfus to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this 
notice.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c)(2) and (e)(1), we compared the CEPs 
of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the 
foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course 
of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section 
below.

[[Page 21727]]

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus, and covered 
by the description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be 
foreign like products for purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we 
compared U.S. sales of OJ to sales of OJ in the home market within the 
contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to 
the month of the first U.S. sale until two months after the last U.S. 
sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home 
market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, 
we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making product 
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by the respondents in the following order of 
importance: product type and organic designation. Where there were no 
sales of identical or similar merchandise, we made product comparisons 
using CV, as discussed in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on 
Constructed Value'' section below. See section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Constructed Export Price

    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
those sales where the merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for 
the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter. In this case, we are treating all of Cutrale's 
and Fischer's U.S. sales as CEP sales because they were made in the 
United States by their U.S. affiliates on behalf of the respondents, 
within the meaning of section 772(b) of the Act.
    Regarding Louis Dreyfus, this respondent reported its U.S. sales as 
export price (EP) transactions because it stated that Louis Dreyfus in 
Brazil, not its U.S. affiliate, negotiated the sales with the U.S. 
customer. However, because the document relied upon by Louis Dreyfus to 
support its claim does not establish the material terms of sale and the 
U.S. affiliate, Louis Dreyfus Citrus Inc. (LDCI), is identified as the 
seller on the commercial invoice to the U.S. customer, we are treating 
all of Louis Dreyfus's U.S. sales as CEP transactions in accordance 
with our practice.

A. Cutrale

    We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. For sales made pursuant to futures 
contracts, we adjusted the reported gross unit price (i.e., the notice 
price) to include gains and losses incurred on the futures contract 
which resulted in the shipment of subject merchandise. Additionally, 
for certain sales made pursuant to futures contracts which were noticed 
prior to the POR, but were shipped and invoiced during the POR, we 
adjusted the reported date of sale for these transactions to base it on 
the invoice date. Where appropriate, we also made adjustments for 
rebates.
    In addition, we made deductions for movement expenses, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, where 
appropriate, foreign inland freight; foreign warehousing expenses; 
foreign brokerage and handling expenses; ocean freight; U.S. brokerage 
and handling (offset by customer-specific reimbursements); U.S. customs 
duties, harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees (offset 
by U.S. duty drawback and customs duty reimbursements); U.S. inland 
freight expenses; and U.S. warehousing expenses. We capped 
reimbursements for brokerage and handling expenses by the amount of 
brokerage and handling expenses incurred on the subject merchandise, in 
accordance with our practice.\9\ We also capped U.S. customs duty 
reimbursements, as well as U.S. duty drawback, by the amount of U.S. 
customs duties incurred on the subject merchandise, in accordance with 
our practice. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g, Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results 
and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 
FR 46584 (Aug. 11, 2008) (2005-2007 OJ from Brazil), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; Certain 
Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 40167 (Aug. 11, 2009) (2007-2008 OJ 
from Brazil), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 3; 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) 
(2008-2009 OJ from Brazil), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 2; and 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, 19318 (Apr. 7, 2011) (2009-2010 OJ from Brazil Preliminary 
Results), unchanged in 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, 76 FR 50176 (Aug. 12, 2011) (2009-2010 OJ from 
Brazil).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (i.e., commissions, imputed credit expenses, and repacking 
expenses (offset by pallet and drum revenue)), and indirect selling 
expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling 
expenses). We capped U.S. pallet revenue and drum revenue by the amount 
of repacking expenses, in accordance with our practice. Id. In 
addition, we recalculated inventory carrying costs using the total 
manufacturing costs, adjusted as noted in the ``Calculation of Cost of 
Production'' section of this notice, below.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Cutrale and its U.S. affiliate on their sales 
of the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit 
associated with those sales.
    For further discussion of the changes made to Cutrale's reported 
U.S. sales data, see the March 30, 2012, memorandum from Blaine Wiltse, 
Senior Analyst, to the File, entitled ``Calculation Adjustments for 
Sucocitrico Cutrale Ltda. for the Preliminary Results'' (Cutrale 
Calculation Memo).

B. Fischer

    We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. In addition, we made deductions for 
movement expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; 
these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight expenses; 
foreign warehousing expenses; foreign brokerage and handling expenses; 
ocean freight expenses (offset by bunker fuel adjustments); marine 
insurance expenses; U.S. brokerage and handling expenses; U.S. customs 
duties, harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees (offset 
by U.S. duty drawback); U.S. inland freight expenses; and U.S. 
warehousing expenses. We capped reimbursements for U.S. customs duties, 
as well as U.S. duty drawback, by the amount of U.S. customs duties 
incurred on the subject merchandise, in accordance with our practice. 
See 2005-2007 OJ from Brazil at Comment 7; 2007-2008 OJ from

[[Page 21728]]

Brazil at Comment 3; and 2008-2009 OJ from Brazil at Comment 2. We also 
capped bunker fuel adjustments by the amount of ocean freight expenses 
incurred on the subject merchandise, in accordance with our practice. 
Id. Further, we determined that the international freight expenses 
provided by Fischer's affiliated freight provider were not at arm's 
length. Therefore, for all sales shipped by Fischer's affiliate, we 
assigned the international freight rate charged by Fischer's affiliate 
to an unaffiliated party to restate them on an arm's-length basis. For 
further discussion, see the March 30, 2012, memorandum to the file from 
Hector Rodriguez, Analyst, entitled ``Calculation Adjustments for 
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura for the Preliminary 
Results'' (Fischer Calculation Memo).
    In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (i.e., additional processing expenses, imputed credit 
expenses, and repacking expenses), and indirect selling expenses 
(including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling 
expenses).
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Fischer and its U.S. affiliate on their sales 
of the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit 
associated with those sales.

C. Louis Dreyfus

    On February 9, 2012, we issued a supplemental questionnaire to 
Louis Dreyfus in which we requested that Louis Dreyfus provide 
commercial invoices and ocean freight invoices for all exports of FCOJ 
or NFC from Brazil by its affiliated exporter, Louis Dreyfus Citrus 
Trading Ltda. (Louis Dreyfus Trading), to the United States during the 
month of March. In its response, Louis Dreyfus stated that it did not 
have any other sales of subject merchandise to the United States during 
March 2011 (i.e., outside the POR). Because (1) Louis Dreyfus did not 
respond directly to the Department's question; and (2) there appears to 
exist contradictory information \10\ on the record of this proceeding, 
we intend to issue an additional supplemental questionnaire to Louis 
Dreyfus to allow it to address this issue. We will consider this 
information for purposes of our final results. However, if Louis 
Dreyfus fails to respond adequately to this subsequent request for 
information, for purposes of the final results, we may consider whether 
the application of facts available is warranted, pursuant to section 
776(a) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Because this contradictory information is proprietary in 
nature, we cannot discuss it here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the U.S. sales that Louis Dreyfus did report, Louis 
Dreyfus used the date of an email order confirmation from its U.S. 
customer as the date of sale for its U.S. sales. The Department's 
regulations at 19 CFR 351.401(i) provide that the Department may use a 
date other than the date of invoice if the different date better 
reflects the date on which the material terms of sale are established. 
In this instance, we find that the essential terms of sale are not set 
as of the date of the email between the parties because the quantity 
and entry date changed after that date. Therefore, we have used as the 
date of sale the date that Louis Dreyfus shipped its merchandise from 
Brazil because this date is earlier than the date LDCI issued the 
commercial invoice and better reflects the date on which the material 
terms of sale were established, in accordance with our practice \11\ 
and 19 CFR 351.401(i). For further discussion of this issue, see the 
March 30, 2012, memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior Analyst, to 
the File, entitled ``Calculation Adjustments for Louis Dreyfus 
Commodities Agroindustrial S.A. for the Preliminary Results'' (Louis 
Dreyfus Sales Calculation Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from Romania: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 71357 (Dec. 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars from Turkey; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and Notice of Intent to 
Revoke in Part, 72 FR 25253, 25256 (May 4, 2007), unchanged in 
Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review and 
Determination To Revoke in Part, 72 FR 62630 (Nov. 6, 2007); and 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (Dec. 
23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated 
purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments 
for billing adjustments. In addition, we made deductions for movement 
expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 
included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight expenses; foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses; ocean freight expenses; U.S. brokerage 
and handling expenses (offset by customer-specific reimbursements); and 
U.S. customs duties (offset by customs duty reimbursements). We 
included certain U.S. brokerage and handling expenses for which Louis 
Dreyfus was not reimbursed by its U.S. customer but were omitted from 
the U.S. sales listing. See Louis Dreyfus Sales Calculation Memo for 
further discussion. We capped reimbursements for brokerage and handling 
expenses by the amount of brokerage and handling expenses incurred on 
the subject merchandise, in accordance with our practice. See, e.g., 
2005-2007 OJ from Brazil at Comment 7; 2007-2008 OJ from Brazil at 
Comment 3; and 2008-2009 OJ from Brazil at Comment 2. We also capped 
U.S. customs duty reimbursements by the amount of U.S. customs duties 
incurred on the subject merchandise, in accordance with our practice. 
Id.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses), and indirect selling expenses 
(including other indirect selling expenses). Because Louis Dreyfus did 
not report indirect selling expenses for LDCI, we calculated these 
expenses using the audited financial statements for LDCI's parent 
company contained in Louis Dreyfus' May 24, 2011, response. For further 
discussion of this calculation, see the Louis Dreyfus Sales Calculation 
Memo. We intend to issue an additional supplemental questionnaire to 
request that Louis Dreyfus provide a calculation of LDCI's indirect 
selling expenses. We will consider this information for purposes of our 
final results. However, if Louis Dreyfus fails to respond adequately to 
this subsequent request for information, for purposes of the final 
results, we may consider whether the application of facts available is 
warranted, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Louis Dreyfus and its U.S. affiliate on their 
sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit 
associated with those sales.

[[Page 21729]]

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    We determined that the aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product for each respondent was sufficient to permit a 
proper comparison with its U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id., 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to 
determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages 
in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the 
distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution), 
including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and 
the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\12\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling, general and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining 
whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 
comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department 
shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the 
Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-33.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from each 
respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the 
reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of 
distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below.
1. Cutrale
    Cutrale reported that it made CEP sales through one channel of 
distribution in the United States (i.e., sales via an affiliated 
reseller) and thus the selling activities it performed did not vary by 
the type of customer. We examined the selling activities performed for 
this channel and found that Cutrale performed the following selling 
functions: sales forecasting, order input/processing, freight and 
delivery, packing, quality guarantees, and maintaining inventory at the 
port of exportation.
    Selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling 
function categories for analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight 
and delivery; (3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and 4) 
warranty and technical support. See 2008-2009 OJ from Brazil at Comment 
7; and Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results 
and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 9991, 9996 (Mar. 9, 2009), unchanged in Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 33409 (July 13, 2009). 
Based on these selling function categories, we find that Cutrale 
performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, inventory 
maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical support for 
U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a 
single distribution channel and the selling activities did not differ 
within this channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT 
in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the home market, Cutrale reported that it made 
sales through one channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to soft 
drink manufacturers). We examined the selling activities performed for 
home market sales and found that Cutrale performed the following 
selling functions: sales forecasting, direct sales personnel, order 
input/processing, advertising, freight and delivery, packing, quality 
guarantees, after-sales services, and inventory maintenance at the 
factory. Accordingly, based on the four selling function categories 
listed above, we find that Cutrale performed sales and marketing, 
freight and delivery, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and 
warranty and technical support for home market sales. Because all home 
market sales are made through a single distribution channel, and the 
selling activities did not differ within this channel, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the home market for Cutrale.
    Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers 
do not differ significantly. Specifically, we found that the 
differences were limited to the following activities: (1) Cutrale 
performed limited, general image advertising in the home market; (2) 
Cutrale entered orders into the company's computer system for home 
market sales based on orders placed by customers, while it generated 
sales documents for sales to its U.S. affiliate based on a general 
shipping schedule; (3) Cutrale has direct sales personnel assigned to 
servicing its home market customers while employing an export sales 
office whose staff is assigned to service all export market customers, 
including U.S. customers; (4) Cutrale provided limited technical 
assistance and after-sale services to home market customers during the 
POR; and (5) Cutrale provides quality guarantees directly to its home 
market customers, while it provides similar guarantees for its U.S. 
sales through its U.S. affiliate.
    According to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), the Department will determine 
that sales are made at different levels of trade if they are made at 
different marketing stages (or their equivalent). Substantial 
differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, 
condition for determining that there is a difference in the stage of 
marketing. Therefore, because we determine that substantial differences 
in Cutrale's selling activities do not exist

[[Page 21730]]

across markets, we determine that sales to the U.S. and home markets 
during the POR were made at the same LOT. As a result, neither a LOT 
adjustment nor a CEP offset is warranted for Cutrale. This 
determination is consistent with findings in previous reviews.\13\ See, 
e.g., 2005-2007 OJ from Brazil at Comment 5; 2007-2008 OJ from Brazil 
at Comment 2; 2008-2009 OJ from Brazil at Comment 7; and 2009-2010 OJ 
from Brazil Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 19319, unchanged in 2009-2010 
OJ from Brazil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This finding is also consistent with Cutrale's statement 
that there were no significant differences between the sales process 
that it performed during the current POR and that which it performed 
in both markets during the previous segment of the proceeding. See 
Cutrale's supplemental section A response, submitted on September 
15, 2011, at page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Louis Dreyfus
    Louis Dreyfus made CEP sales \14\ through one channel of 
distribution in the United States (i.e., sales via an affiliated 
reseller) and, thus, the selling activities it performed did not vary 
by the type of customer. We examined the selling activities performed 
for this channel and found that Louis Dreyfus performed the following 
selling functions: customer contact and price negotiation; order input/
processing; employing direct sales personnel; providing guarantees; 
providing inventory maintenance; and arranging for freight. Selling 
activities can be generally grouped into four selling function 
categories for analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight and 
delivery; (3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and (4) warranty 
and technical support. Accordingly, based on these selling function 
categories, we find that Louis Dreyfus performed sales and marketing, 
freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are 
made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine 
that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Louis Dreyfus reported that its U.S. sales were EP, not 
CEP, sales. However, as noted in the ``Constructed Export Price'' 
section of this notice, above, we have reclassified Louis Dreyfus' 
U.S. sales as CEP sales for purposes of the preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the home market, Louis Dreyfus reported that it 
made sales through two channels of distribution to two types of 
customers (i.e., large soft drink manufacturers/industrial juice 
producers and small soft drink manufacturers). However, we find that 
the selling activities it performed did not vary significantly by the 
channel of distribution or the type of customer. Therefore, we have 
considered the selling functions for all customers in the aggregate. We 
examined the selling activities performed for home market sales, and 
found that Louis Dreyfus performed the following selling functions:\15\ 
customer contact and price negotiation; order input/processing; 
employing direct sales personnel; providing guarantees; and packing. In 
addition, for certain home market sales, Louis Dreyfus also indicated 
that it performed sales forecasting and inventory maintenance. 
Accordingly, based on the selling function categories listed above, we 
find that Louis Dreyfus performed sales and marketing and inventory 
maintenance and warehousing for home market sales. Because all home 
market sales are made through a single distribution channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market for 
Louis Dreyfus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In its selling functions chart, Louis Dreyfus indicated 
that it performed freight and delivery for certain home market 
sales; however, it did not report these expenses for any home market 
sales. Therefore, we are not considering this selling function for 
purposes of our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers 
do not differ significantly. Therefore, we determine that sales to the 
U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as 
a result, neither a LOT adjustment nor a CEP offset is warranted for 
Louis Dreyfus.
3. Fischer
    Because all of Fischer's home market sales failed the cost test 
during the POR, we based NV on CV. When NV is based on CV, the NV LOT 
is that of the sales from which we derive selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses and profit. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
Brazil, 69 FR 47081 (Aug. 4, 2004), unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (Dec. 23, 2004). In 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.412(d), the Department will make its LOT 
determination under paragraph (d)(2) of this section on the basis of 
sales of the foreign like product by the producer or exporter. We based 
the selling expenses and profit for Fischer on the weighted-average 
selling expenses incurred and profits earned by the other respondents 
in the proceeding (i.e., Cutrale and Louis Dreyfus). Thus, as described 
below, we attempted to determine the LOT of the sales from which we 
derived selling expenses and profit for CV.
    Fischer reported that it made CEP sales through one channel of 
distribution in the United States (i.e., sales via an affiliated 
reseller) and, thus, the selling activities it performed did not vary 
by the type of customer. We examined the selling activities performed 
for this channel and found that Fischer performed the following selling 
functions: customer contact and price negotiation; order processing; 
arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage 
services; and inventory maintenance. Selling activities can be 
generally grouped into four selling function categories for analysis: 
(1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight and delivery; (3) inventory 
maintenance and warehousing; and (4) warranty and technical support. 
Accordingly, based on these selling function categories, we find that 
Fischer performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, 
and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all 
sales in the United States are made through a single distribution 
channel and the selling activities did not differ within this channel, 
we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    As noted above, based on the four selling function categories, we 
find that Cutrale performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery, 
inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical 
support for its home market sales. In addition, we find that Louis 
Dreyfus performed sales and marketing and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing for its home market sales. Because Cutrale and Louis 
Dreyfus did not perform the same selling functions in the home market, 
we could not determine the LOT of the sales from which we derived 
selling expenses and profit for CV. As a result, we could not compare 
the CEP LOT to the home market LOT. Therefore, we did not make a LOT 
adjustment or CEP offset to NV for Fischer. See the ``Calculation of 
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section of this notice, 
below.

C. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    During the POR, Cutrale and Louis Dreyfus made sales in the home 
market to affiliated parties, as defined in section 771(33) of the Act. 
Consequently, we tested these sales to ensure that they were made at 
arm's-length prices, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.403(c). To test 
whether the

[[Page 21731]]

sales to the affiliates were made at arm's-length prices, we compared 
the unit prices of sales to the affiliated and unaffiliated customers 
net of all movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing 
expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the 
Department's practice, where the price to that affiliated party was, on 
average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same 
or comparable merchandise sold to the unaffiliated parties at the same 
LOT, we determined that the sales made to the affiliated party were at 
arm's-length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 
the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186 (Nov. 15, 2002) (establishing 
that the overall ratio calculated for an affiliate must be between 98 
and 102 percent in order for sales to be considered in the ordinary 
course of trade and used in the NV calculation). Sales to affiliated 
customers in the home market that were not made at arm's-length prices 
were excluded from our analysis because we considered these sales to be 
outside the ordinary course of trade. See section 771(15) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.102(b).

D. Cost of Production Analysis

    We found that Cutrale and Fischer made sales below the COP in the 
2008-2009 administrative review, the most recently completed segment of 
this proceeding as of the date of initiation of this review, and such 
sales were disregarded. See 2008-2009 OJ from Brazil. Thus, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Cutrale and Fischer made 
home market sales at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise 
in the current POR.
    Moreover, on July 18, 2011, the petitioners alleged that Louis 
Dreyfus made sales in the home market, during the POR that were below 
the COP. Based on our analysis of the allegation made by the 
petitioner, we found that Louis Dreyfus' home market sales which fell 
below the COP were representative of the broader range of sales which 
may be used as a basis for NV. Therefore, we determined, on this basis 
as well, that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
Louis Dreyfus' sales of OJ in the home market were made at prices below 
its COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we 
initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether Louis 
Dreyfus' sales were made at prices below its COP. See Louis Dreyfus 
Cost Investigation Memo.
    We examined the cost data for Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus 
and determined that our quarterly cost methodology is not warranted 
and, therefore, we have applied our standard methodology of using 
annual costs based on the reported data, adjusted as described below.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
respondents' COPs based on the sum of their costs of materials and 
conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses (see ``Test of 
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section, below, for treatment of home 
market selling expenses).
a. Cutrale
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Cutrale in its 
most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, except 
in the following instances:
    i. We used Cutrale's home market actual brix level data to adjust 
Cutrale's home market costs to ensure that these are stated on a 
pounds-solid basis using actual brix; and
    ii. We revised Cutrale's calculation of its G&A expense rate to 
exclude from the numerator of the calculation the change in fair value 
of biological assets (i.e., orange trees). We intend to issue an 
additional supplemental questionnaire to Cutrale to allow it to provide 
further information on the valuation of these assets.
    For further discussion of this adjustment, see the Cutrale 
Calculation Memo.
b. Fischer
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Fischer in its 
first cost database, rather than its cost database submitted in 
December 2011, because Fischer made certain unexplained adjustments to 
its reported costs. We intend to issue an additional supplemental 
questionnaire to Fischer to allow it to provide further information 
regarding these adjustments. We adjusted Fischer's reported cost data 
as follows:

    i. We adjusted Fischer's financial expense calculation to 
disallow long term interest income and to include the total amount 
of Fischer's realized hedge results as recorded in Fischer's income 
statement.
    ii. We revised Fischer's G&A expense ratio calculation to 
include ``other'' operating expenses related to provisions and 
disposal of fixed assets.
    iii. In accordance with the transactions disregarded rule (i.e., 
section 773(f)(2) of the Act) we adjusted Fischer's cost of 
manufacturing (COM) to reflect the market value for the sale of 
certain by-products to its affiliated trade company.

    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the Fischer 
Calculation Memo.
c. Louis Dreyfus
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Louis Dreyfus in 
its most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, 
except in the following instances:

    i. We revised the denominator of Louis Dreyfus' reported G&A 
expense ratio to reflect the company-wide fiscal year 2010 cost of 
sales reflected on Louis Dreyfus' audited income statement. We 
adjusted the cost of sales for by-product revenue, packing expenses, 
and the difference between Louis Dreyfus' growing season costs 
reported to the Department and the growing season costs recorded in 
the company's normal books and records. To calculate these 
adjustments, we determined the relative percentage of each type of 
expense or adjustment to Louis Dreyfus' fiscal year 2010 cost of 
sales. We then applied the percentages to the parent company's 
fiscal year 2010 cost of sales to determine the adjustment to the 
denominator.
    ii. We revised the numerator of Louis Dreyfus' reported 
financial expense ratio to include only that portion of the claimed 
short-term interest income offset that the record indicates was 
generated by short-term interest bearing assets related to working 
capital. We also revised the denominator of the financial expense 
ratio (i.e., Louis Dreyfus' parent company's cost of sales) to 
reflect the same adjustments made to G&A (i.e., by-product revenue, 
packing expenses, and growing season cost differences), as detailed 
above.

    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the March 30, 
2012, memorandum from LaVonne Clark to Neal M. Halper entitled, ``Cost 
of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results--Louis Dreyfus Citrus Inc. and Louis Dreyfus 
Commodities Agroindustrial S.A.''
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market sales prices of the foreign like 
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether the sales prices were below the COP. For purposes of 
this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. 
The prices (inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, direct and indirect 
selling expenses and packing expenses.

[[Page 21732]]

3. Results of the COP Test
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act: (1) Whether, within an extended period 
of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales 
of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard 
any below-cost sales of that product, because we determine that in such 
instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period 
of time and in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of 
a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the 
COP, we disregard the below-cost sales when: (1) They were made within 
an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) based on our 
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they 
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of 
Cutrale's and Louis Dreyfus', and all of Fischer's, home market sales 
were at prices less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not 
provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. 
We therefore excluded these sales from our analysis. We used the 
remaining sales as the basis for determining NV for Cutrale and Louis 
Dreyfus in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no 
home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared CEPs to 
CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See the 
``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section 
below.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

1. Cutrale
    For Cutrale, we calculated NV based on ex-factory prices to 
unaffiliated customers. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the 
starting price for billing adjustments and interest revenue, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We have treated Cutrale's home 
market interest revenue as a price adjustment, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.401(c) and 351.102(b). We also made adjustments, where 
appropriate, to the starting price for Brazilian taxes, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act.
    In addition we made deductions pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of 
the Act for home market credit expenses. We recalculated Cutrale's home 
market credit expenses to base the calculation on the gross unit price, 
inclusive of home market interest revenue, but net of taxes and billing 
adjustments. Where applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), we 
offset any commission paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV by the 
amount of home market indirect selling expenses and inventory carrying 
costs, up to the amount of the U.S. commission.
    We recalculated home market inventory carrying costs using the 
manufacturing costs reported in Cutrale's most recent cost response, 
adjusted as noted in the ``Calculation of Cost of Production'' section 
of this notice, above. For further discussion of these adjustments, see 
the Cutrale Calculation Memo.
    We deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, 
where appropriate, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of 
the Act.
    Finally, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable 
to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.
2. Louis Dreyfus
    We calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting 
price for billing adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
also made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for 
Brazilian taxes, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the 
Act.
    In addition, we made deductions pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of 
the Act for home market credit expenses. We deducted home market 
packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 
773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
    Finally, we made adjustments for differences in costs attributable 
to differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for all 
of Fischer's sales and for certain sales made by Louis Dreyfus, we 
based NV on CV because there were no home market sales in the ordinary 
course of trade that could be properly compared to those U.S. sales.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the 
sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expense (including financing 
expenses), profit, and U.S. packing costs. We calculated respondents' 
materials, G&A, and financing costs as described in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section, above.
    For comparisons to CEP, we deducted from CV the respondents' 
weighted-average home market direct selling expenses.
    Because Fischer did not have home market sales in the ordinary 
course of trade, the Department cannot determine profit under section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, which requires sales by the respondent in 
question in the ordinary course of trade in a comparison market. 
Likewise, because Fischer does not have sales of any product in the 
same general category of products as the subject merchandise, we are 
unable to apply alternative (i) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. 
Alternative (ii) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act allows for the 
Department to use the weighted average of the actual amounts incurred 
and realized by exporters or producers that are subject to the 
investigation or review (other than the exporter or producer described 
in clause (i)) for SG&A expenses, and for profits, in connection with 
the production and sale of a foreign like product, in the ordinary 
course of trade, for consumption in the foreign country. Further, 
because there are two other respondents in this administrative review, 
the Department is applying alternative (ii) and has based Fischer's CV 
selling expenses and profit rate on the weighted average of the data of 
Cutrale and Louis Dreyfus. For further discussion, see the Fischer 
Calculation Memo.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars, in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period March 1, 2010, through 
February 28, 2011, as follows:

[[Page 21733]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                     Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A......................................      2.81
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura.............      8.73
Louis Dreyfus Commodities Agroindustrial S.A..................     22.03
Montecitrus Trading S.A.......................................       (*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309, interested parties may submit cases briefs not later 
than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than five days after the time limit for filing the case briefs. 
Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding 
are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the 
issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of 
authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 
An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 
p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after the date of publication 
of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address 
and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of 
issues to be discussed. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to 
those raised in the respective case briefs and rebuttal briefs. The 
Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, 
including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in the case 
briefs and rebuttals, not later than 120 days after the date of 
publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 
Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this 
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review.
    We will calculate 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which 
the assessment rate is de minimis. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final 
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy Notice. 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 that the merchandise they sold to the 
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment 
Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific 
company listed above will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 
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 original less than fair value (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 of NFC, and for FCOJM produced and/or 
exported by Cargill Citrus Limitada will continue to be 16.51 percent, 
the all-others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See OJ 
Order, 71 FR at 12184. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 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.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

     Dated: March 30, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-8381 Filed 4-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P