Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final No Shipment Determination, 63291-63293 [2012-25454]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Notices
Secretary at the address below. The
closing period for their receipt is
November 26, 2012.
A copy of the notification will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room
21013, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230–0002, and in the
‘‘Reading Room’’ section of the Board’s
Web site, which is accessible via
www.trade.gov/ftz.
For further information, contact Diane
Finver at Diane.Finver@trade.gov (202)
482–1367.
Dated: October 11, 2012.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–25478 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–351–840]
Certain Orange Juice From Brazil:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final No
Shipment Determination
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
DATES: Effective Date: October 16,
SUMMARY: On April 11, 2012, the
2012.
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, 2010, through February 28,
2011.
After analyzing the comments
received, we have made certain changes
in the margin calculations. Therefore,
these final results differ from the
preliminary results. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the
reviewed firms are listed below in the
section entitled ‘‘Final Results of
Review.’’
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Blaine Wiltse or Elizabeth Eastwood,
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–
3874, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
Background
On April 11, 2012, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
preliminary results of the 2010–2011
administrative review of antidumping
duty order on certain OJ from Brazil.1
Also in April 2012, the Department
issued supplemental questionnaires to
each of the three respondents in this
administrative review (i.e., Fischer S.A.
Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura
(Fischer), Louis Dreyfus Commodities
Agroindustrial S.A. (Louis Dreyfus), and
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale)). We
received responses to these
supplemental questionnaires in the
same month.
We invited parties to comment on our
preliminary results of review. In May
2012, we received case briefs from the
petitioners (i.e., Florida Citrus Mutual
and Citrus World Inc.), Cutrale, Fischer,
and Louis Dreyfus. We received rebuttal
briefs from the petitioners. On July 20,
2012, the Department extended the final
results in the current review to no later
than October 9, 2012. See the
Memorandum to Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD
Operations, from Blaine Wiltse, Senior
Trade Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD
Operations, entitled, ‘‘Certain Orange
Juice from Brazil: Extension of Deadline
for Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review,’’ dated July 20,
2012.
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
1 See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Preliminary No
Shipment Determination, 77 FR 21724 (Apr. 11,
2012) (Preliminary Results).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63291
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 S.A. (Coinbra Frutesp),2
Cutrale, Fischer, and Montecitrus
Trading S.A. (Montecitrus).
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, 2010, through
February 28, 2011.
Successor-in-Interest
As noted in the Preliminary Results,
in its request for a review, Louis Dreyfus
claimed that it is the successor-ininterest to Coinbra Frutesp and its
wholly-owned subsidiary Coinbra
Frutesp Agroinstrial Ltda. (Coinbra
Frutesp Ag.), a producer of subject
merchandise in Brazil. Based on Louis
Dreyfus’ submissions addressing the
four factors with respect to this change
in corporate structure (i.e., management,
production facilities for the subject
merchandise, supplier relationships,
and customer base),3 in the preliminary
results we preliminarily found that
Coinbra Frutesp Ag.’s organizational
structure, management, production
facilities, supplier relationships, and
2 As discussed below, we find that Louis Dreyfus
is the successor-in-interest to Coinbra Frutesp. See
the ‘‘Successor-in Interest’’ section of this notice.
3 See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances
Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from
Canada, 70 FR 50299, 50300–01 (Aug. 26, 2005)
(setting forth the four factors to be considered for
successorship determinations), unchanged in
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 59721 (Oct.
13, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
63292
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
customers have remained essentially
unchanged. Further, we found that
Louis Dreyfus operates as the same
business entity as Coinbra Frutesp Ag.
with respect to the production and sale
of OJ. Therefore, we preliminarily
determined that Louis Dreyfus is the
successor-in-interest to Coinbra Frutesp.
See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 21726.
Since the preliminary results, no
party to this proceeding has commented
on this issue, and we have received no
new information with respect to this
issue. As a result, we continue to find
that Louis Dreyfus is the successor-ininterest to Coinbra Frutesp.
Determination of No Shipments
As noted in the Preliminary Results,
we received a no-shipment claim from
Montecitrus, named in the notice of
initiation of this review, and we
confirmed its claim with U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (CBP). Because
we find that the record indicates that
Montecitrus did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR, we determine that it 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
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
entries of merchandise produced by
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
this company 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, Fischer,
and Louis Dreyfus 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, 77 FR at 21731. For
these final results, we performed the
cost test following the same
methodology as in the Preliminary
Results, except that we used the COP
database accompanying Fischer’s April
2012 response in our calculations for
Fischer. For further discussion, see the
Issues and Decision Memorandum
(Decision Memo), accompanying this
notice, at Comment 9.
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, Fischer,
and Louis Dreyfus 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 normal value (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 and
rebuttal briefs by parties in this
administrative review are addressed in
the Decision Memo, dated concurrently
with, and hereby adopted by, this
notice. A list of the issues addressed in
the Decision Memo is appended to this
notice. The Decision Memo is on file
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Services System (IA
ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is
available to registered users at https://
iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central
Records Unit of the main Commerce
Building, room 7046. In addition, a
complete version of the Decision Memo
is also accessible on the Web at https://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
the 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, 2010,
through February 28, 2011:
Manufacturer/Exporter
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. ..............
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria,
and Agricultura ..........................
Louis
Dreyfus
Commodities
Agroindustrial S.A. ....................
Montecitrus Trading S.A. ..............
Percent
margin
2.63
4.72
20.34
*
* 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
results of review for which the reviewed
companies did not know their
merchandise was destined for the
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 16, 2012 / Notices
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 investigation
if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the
transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
In April 2012, the International Trade
Commission (ITC) determined, pursuant
to section 751(c) of the Act, that
revocation of this order would not be
likely to lead to the continuation or
recurrence of material injury to an
industry in the United States within a
reasonably foreseeable time. See Certain
Orange Juice From Brazil, 77 FR 22343
(Apr. 13, 2012). See also USITC
Publication 4311 (April 2012), titled
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil (Inv.
No. 731–TA–1089). As a result of the
ITC’s negative determination, the
Department revoked the order on OJ
from Brazil on April 20, 2012, effective
as of March 9, 2012 (i.e., the fifth
anniversary of the date of publication in
the Federal Register of the antidumping
duty order). See Revocation of
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Orange Juice From Brazil, 77 FR 23659
(Apr. 20, 2012). Consequently, the
collection of cash deposits of
antidumping duties on entries of the
subject merchandise is no longer
required.
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.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:06 Oct 15, 2012
Jkt 229001
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: October 9, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
Appendix—Issues in Decision
Memorandum
General Issues
1. Offsetting of Negative Margins
2. Treatment of By-Product Revenue in the
Calculation of General and
Administrative and Financial Expenses
Cutrale Issues
3. Constructed Export Price Offset for Cutrale
4. Use of Actual Brix To Calculate the Prices
and Quantities for Cutrale’s Home
Market Sales
5. Inventory Carrying Costs for Cutrale’s U.S.
Sales
6. Capping of Certain Revenues Received by
Cutrale by the Amount of Reported
Expenses
7. Cutrale’s Biological Assets
Fischer Issues
8. Calculation of Fischer’s International
Freight Expenses To Include Bunker
Fuel
9. Ministerial Errors in Fischer’s Cost
Calculations
10. Loss on Hedge Operations Included in the
Calculation of Fischer’s Financial
Expense Ratio
11. Exclusion of Long-Term Interest Income
From the Calculation of Fischer’s
Financial Expense Ratio
Louis Dreyfus Issues
12. Date of Sale for Louis Dreyfus
13. Classification of Louis Dreyfus’ U.S. Sales
as CEP Sales
14 Calculation of Louis Dreyfus’ Brokerage
and Handling Expenses
15. Calculation and Application of Louis
Dreyfus’ U.S. Indirect Selling Expense
Ratio
16. Use of Partial Adverse Facts Available for
Louis Dreyfus’ U.S. Indirect Selling
Expenses and Inventory Carrying Costs
[FR Doc. 2012–25454 Filed 10–15–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Coastal Ocean
Program Grants Proposal Application
Package
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63293
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before December 17,
2012.
Direct all written comments
to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 6616,
14th and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at JJessup@doc.gov).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to Laurie Golden, 301–713–
3338 ext 151 or laurie.golden@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
I. Abstract
This request is for a revision of a
currently approved information
collection. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration’s Coastal
Ocean Program (COP) provides direct
financial assistance through grants and
cooperative agreements for research
supporting the management of coastal
ecosystems. The statutory authority for
COP is Public Law 102–567 Section 201
(Coastal Ocean Program). In addition to
standard government application
requirements, applicants for financial
assistance are required to submit a
project summary form, current and
pending form and a key contacts form.
Recipients are required to file annual
progress reports and a project final
report using COP formats. All of these
requirements are needed for better
evaluation of proposals and monitoring
of awards.
This request is for a revision due to
the addition of the Key Contacts and the
Current and Pending Federal Support
forms. These additional forms are
necessary for consistency. The main
purpose of this information collection is
to enable COP to provide a summary of
the key applicant contacts and their
current and pending Federal funding.
The information gathered will enable
COP to properly and quickly evaluate
proposals in a collaborative
environment with its partner agencies.
II. Method of Collection
Respondents have a choice of either
electronic or paper forms.
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0648–0384.
Form Number: None.
E:\FR\FM\16OCN1.SGM
16OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 16, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63291-63293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25454]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-840]
Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Final No Shipment Determination
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: October 16, 2012.
SUMMARY: On April 11, 2012, 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, 2010, through
February 28, 2011.
After analyzing the comments received, we have made certain changes
in the margin calculations. Therefore, these final results differ from
the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for
the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled ``Final
Results of Review.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Wiltse or Elizabeth Eastwood,
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) 482-3874, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 11, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register
the preliminary results of the 2010-2011 administrative review of
antidumping duty order on certain OJ from Brazil.\1\ Also in April
2012, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to each of the
three respondents in this administrative review (i.e., Fischer S.A.
Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura (Fischer), Louis Dreyfus
Commodities Agroindustrial S.A. (Louis Dreyfus), and Sucocitrico
Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale)). We received responses to these supplemental
questionnaires in the same month.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary No Shipment
Determination, 77 FR 21724 (Apr. 11, 2012) (Preliminary Results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review.
In May 2012, we received case briefs from the petitioners (i.e.,
Florida Citrus Mutual and Citrus World Inc.), Cutrale, Fischer, and
Louis Dreyfus. We received rebuttal briefs from the petitioners. On
July 20, 2012, the Department extended the final results in the current
review to no later than October 9, 2012. See the Memorandum to
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, AD/CVD Operations, from
Blaine Wiltse, Senior Trade Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations,
entitled, ``Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Extension of Deadline for
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' dated July
20, 2012.
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 S.A. (Coinbra
Frutesp),\2\ Cutrale, Fischer, and Montecitrus Trading S.A.
(Montecitrus).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As discussed below, we 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 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, 2010, through February 28, 2011.
Successor-in-Interest
As noted in the Preliminary Results, in its request for a review,
Louis Dreyfus claimed that it is the successor-in-interest to Coinbra
Frutesp and its wholly-owned subsidiary Coinbra Frutesp Agroinstrial
Ltda. (Coinbra Frutesp Ag.), a producer of subject merchandise in
Brazil. Based on Louis Dreyfus' submissions addressing the four factors
with respect to this change in corporate structure (i.e., management,
production facilities for the subject merchandise, supplier
relationships, and customer base),\3\ in the preliminary results we
preliminarily found that Coinbra Frutesp Ag.'s organizational
structure, management, production facilities, supplier relationships,
and
[[Page 63292]]
customers have remained essentially unchanged. Further, we found that
Louis Dreyfus operates as the same business entity as Coinbra Frutesp
Ag. with respect to the production and sale of OJ. Therefore, we
preliminarily determined that Louis Dreyfus is the successor-in-
interest to Coinbra Frutesp. See Preliminary Results, 77 FR at 21726.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada, 70 FR 50299, 50300-01 (Aug. 26, 2005)
(setting forth the four factors to be considered for successorship
determinations), unchanged in Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood Lumber Products
from Canada, 70 FR 59721 (Oct. 13, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the preliminary results, no party to this proceeding has
commented on this issue, and we have received no new information with
respect to this issue. As a result, we continue to find that Louis
Dreyfus is the successor-in-interest to Coinbra Frutesp.
Determination of No Shipments
As noted in the Preliminary Results, we received a no-shipment
claim from Montecitrus, named in the notice of initiation of this
review, and we confirmed its claim with U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP). Because we find that the record indicates that
Montecitrus did not export subject merchandise to the United States
during the POR, we determine that it 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 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 this company 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, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus
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, 77 FR at 21731. For
these final results, we performed the cost test following the same
methodology as in the Preliminary Results, except that we used the COP
database accompanying Fischer's April 2012 response in our calculations
for Fischer. For further discussion, see the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (Decision Memo), accompanying this notice, at Comment 9.
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, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus 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 normal value (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 and rebuttal briefs by parties in
this administrative review are addressed in the Decision Memo, dated
concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. A list of the
issues addressed in the Decision Memo is appended to this notice. The
Decision Memo is on file electronically via Import Administration's
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services
System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered
users at https://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit of
the main Commerce Building, room 7046. In addition, a complete version
of the Decision Memo is also accessible on the Web at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and the 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, 2010, through February 28, 2011:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Manufacturer/Exporter margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A..................................... 2.63
Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura............ 4.72
Louis Dreyfus Commodities Agroindustrial S.A................. 20.34
Montecitrus Trading S.A...................................... *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ 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 results of review for
which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was
destined for the
[[Page 63293]]
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 investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate
company(ies) involved in the transaction.
Cash Deposit Requirements
In April 2012, the International Trade Commission (ITC) determined,
pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of this order
would not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of
material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably
foreseeable time. See Certain Orange Juice From Brazil, 77 FR 22343
(Apr. 13, 2012). See also USITC Publication 4311 (April 2012), titled
Certain Orange Juice from Brazil (Inv. No. 731-TA-1089). As a result of
the ITC's negative determination, the Department revoked the order on
OJ from Brazil on April 20, 2012, effective as of March 9, 2012 (i.e.,
the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the Federal
Register of the antidumping duty order). See Revocation of Antidumping
Duty Order: Certain Orange Juice From Brazil, 77 FR 23659 (Apr. 20,
2012). Consequently, the collection of cash deposits of antidumping
duties on entries of the subject merchandise is no longer required.
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: October 9, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
Appendix--Issues in Decision Memorandum
General Issues
1. Offsetting of Negative Margins
2. Treatment of By-Product Revenue in the Calculation of General and
Administrative and Financial Expenses
Cutrale Issues
3. Constructed Export Price Offset for Cutrale
4. Use of Actual Brix To Calculate the Prices and Quantities for
Cutrale's Home Market Sales
5. Inventory Carrying Costs for Cutrale's U.S. Sales
6. Capping of Certain Revenues Received by Cutrale by the Amount of
Reported Expenses
7. Cutrale's Biological Assets
Fischer Issues
8. Calculation of Fischer's International Freight Expenses To
Include Bunker Fuel
9. Ministerial Errors in Fischer's Cost Calculations
10. Loss on Hedge Operations Included in the Calculation of
Fischer's Financial Expense Ratio
11. Exclusion of Long-Term Interest Income From the Calculation of
Fischer's Financial Expense Ratio
Louis Dreyfus Issues
12. Date of Sale for Louis Dreyfus
13. Classification of Louis Dreyfus' U.S. Sales as CEP Sales
14 Calculation of Louis Dreyfus' Brokerage and Handling Expenses
15. Calculation and Application of Louis Dreyfus' U.S. Indirect
Selling Expense Ratio
16. Use of Partial Adverse Facts Available for Louis Dreyfus' U.S.
Indirect Selling Expenses and Inventory Carrying Costs
[FR Doc. 2012-25454 Filed 10-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P