[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5798-5800]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3101]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-605]
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: In response to timely requests from the respondents, Branco
Peres Citrus, S.A. (Branco) and CTM Citrus S.A., formerly Citropectina
(CTM), the Department of Commerce (the Department) has conducted an
administrative review of the antidumping order on frozen concentrated
orange juice from Brazil. The review covers merchandise exported to the
United States by these two respondents during the period of May 1,
1992, through April 30, 1993.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Brinkmann or Greg Thompson Office
of Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230; telephone: (202)
482-5288 or (202) 482-3003, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
On August 14, 1995, the Department published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of its 1992-93 administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice
(FCOJ) from Brazil (60 FR 41874). On August 25, 1995, both respondents
submitted case briefs. The petitioners submitted a rebuttal brief on
August 29, 1995. There was no request for a hearing. The Department has
now conducted this review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended (the Tariff Act). The final margins for Branco
and CTM are listed below in the section ``Final Results of Review.''
Applicable Statute and Regulations
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the Statute and to the
Department's regulations are in reference to the provisions as they
existed on December 31, 1994.
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of FCOJ from Brazil.
The merchandise is currently classifiable under item 2009.11.00 of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of this review is dispositive.
Fair Value Comparisons
We compared the United States price (USP) to the foreign market
value (FMV), as specified in the ``United States Price'' and ``Foreign
Market Value'' sections of this notice.
United States Price
We calculated USP according to the methodology described in our
preliminary results.
Foreign Market Value (FMV)
As stated in the preliminary results, we found that the home market
was not viable for either respondent and based FMV on third country FOB
sales or offers for sale.
We calculated FMV according to the methodology described in our
preliminary results.
Interested Party Comments
Comment 1: Packing Cost for Branco
Branco contends that the Department mistakenly added U.S. packing
costs to the third-country price used to calculate foreign market
value.
The petitioners contend that the Department adjusted the prices to
make an accurate comparison of net prices, and that the Department
should continue with this approach in the final results.
Department Position
We agree with the petitioners. It is Department practice to compare
ex-factory packed prices. In order to adjust for differences in packing
expenses, the Department subtracts the comparison market packing from
the FMV and adds U.S. packing to the FMV (see Final Results of
Antidumping Administrative Review Roller Chain, Other Than Bicycle,
from Japan, 60 FR 62387-89, December 6, 1995).
Comment 2: Use of Shorter Periods
In the preliminary results, we confirmed that there is a direct
linkage between respondents' prices in this review period and the
minimum export price (MEP) which is based on the price of FCOJ on the
New York Cotton Exchange (NYCE) futures market. Given the price
volatility of the MEP during this review period, we adopted the
methodology used in past FCOJ reviews of using FMV periods that are
shorter than a month. Insofar as the fluctuations in the MEP reached up
to 51% in a given month for this review period, we determined that it
was necessary for comparison periods to be based on any change in the
MEP throughout the continuum of the period of review (POR).
CTM states that the Department has retroactively defined the time
periods for price-to-price comparisons. The respondent further states
that this approach was not well considered, and urges the Department to
rely on monthly weighted average comparisons.
The petitioners contend that the MEP has been used as a tool to
define shorter FMV comparison periods in three prior administrative
reviews of FCOJ. The petitioners further contend that this methodology
should, in theory, be a more accurate measure of whether less-than-
fair-value pricing has occurred in this volatile commodity market.
Department Position
We agree with the petitioners that changes in the MEP have been
used in past reviews to establish FMV comparison periods shorter than
one month, and that using the MEP should, in theory, be a more accurate
measure in a volatile market. The Department first used shorter FMV
periods in the third review because a severe freeze in Florida had a
dramatic effect on the price for FCOJ on the NYCE futures market and,
thus, the MEP. In that review, shorter FMV periods were defined by
changes of ten percent in the MEP in a given month. While the same
methodology was used in the fourth and fifth reviews, the reason for
using it was not discussed. In the sixth review, we have continued to
use the MEP to determine shorter FMV periods, however, we have refined
the methodology in the following manner. First, since FCOJ commodity
prices on the NYCE fluctuate on a continuum, unrelated to the starting
and ending of
[[Page 5799]]
months, we based the periods on changes throughout the review period
and not just changes in a given month. Second, we believe that
comparison periods based on any change in the MEP, as opposed to a ten
percent change, provide us with a more accurate analysis, given the
significant price fluctuations in this review period. For further
discussion of this issue, see the preliminary results concurrence
memorandum, dated August 8, 1995.
Comment 3: Date of Sale for CTM
CTM contends that the Department incorrectly used the date of
issuance of the export license as the date of sale. CTM further
contends that the date of shipment is its appropriate date of sale.
The petitioners state that the use of the date of issuance of the
export license is harmonious with the Department's contemporaneous
sales methodology (i.e., price is set as of that date regardless of
when the merchandise is shipped). The petitioners also state that using
this methodology allows the Department to match U.S. with third-country
sales which were made under similar market pressures (i.e.,
hyperinflation and rapid FCOJ price fluctuations in the NYCE futures
market).
Department Position
We agree with the petitioners. In its September 9, 1994,
submission, CTM stated that while the price for the transaction is set
as of the date of issuance of the export license, the quantity is not
fixed until the date of the shipment. However, after reviewing CTM's
export documents and invoices for all third-country and U.S. sales made
during the POR, it is clear that the terms of sale were established on
the date of issuance of the export license. With one exception, a
quantity difference of less than one percent, the terms of sale on the
export license matched the terms on the relevant invoice. (see
preliminary results concurrence memorandum).
Comment 4: Use of Exchange Rates for CTM
CTM contends that in converting the inland freight expense for U.S.
shipments to dollars, the Department should use the exchange rate in
effect on the date of payment of these expenses.
Department Position
We agree with the respondent that, on occasion, when calculating
margins for hyperinflationary economies, charges and adjustments have
been converted to dollars based on the exchange rate in effect on the
date the charge becomes payable. However, because of the administrative
burden associated with using this methodology, the Department's
preference is to convert charges on the date of shipment, the closest
approximation to the date the charges become payable. In this instance,
the issue is moot because information concerning the dates that the
charges became payable is not on the record.
Comment 5: Comparison Periods
CTM states that if the Department were to use the 90/60 rule to
define comparison periods, there would be no need to use the MEP as a
surrogate for establishing FMV because there would be actual sales
which could be used for comparison purposes.
The petitioners state that using the 90/60 rule is inconsistent
with the logic of using shorter periods in the first place--namely, to
avoid distortions in margin calculation due to fluctuations in
commodity prices.
Department Position
We agree with the petitioners that using the 90/60 rule would
ignore the reason for using shorter periods in the first place.
Furthermore, we have confirmed that there is a strict correlation
between the MEP, a long-standing program established by the Brazilian
FCOJ producers, and the prices to the U.S. and third-country sales of
both respondents. Accordingly, we have continued to rely on the
methodology used in the preliminary determination to avoid distortion
in the dumping margin calculations.
Final Results of Review
As a result of our analysis of the comments received, we determine
that the following weighted-average margins exist for the period of May
1, 1992 through April 30, 1993:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branco..................................................... 2.52
CTM........................................................ 0.98
All Others................................................. 1.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentage stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirement will be effective
for all shipments of FCOJ from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section
751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the reviewed
companies will be as outlined above; (2) for merchandise exported by
manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in
previous reviews or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV)
investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the rate
published in the most recent final results or determination for which
the manufacturer or exporter received a company-specific rate; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, an earlier review,
or the LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit
rate will be that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise
in the final results of this review, earlier reviews, or the LTFV
investigation, whichever is the most recent; (4) the cash deposit rate
for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 1.96 percent, the
``all other'' rate established in the original LTFV investigation by
the Department (52 FR 8324, March 17, 1987), in accordance with the
decisions of the Court of International Trade in Floral Trade Council
v. United States, Slip Op. 993-79, and Federal-Mogul Corporation v.
United States, Slip Op. 93-83.
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in
effect until publication of the final results of the next
administrative review.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 in the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also 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 353.34(d). 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 terms of the APO is a sanctionable violation.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR
353.22.
[[Page 5800]]
Dated: January 31, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-3101 Filed 2-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
