[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29328-29329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14177]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-351-605]
Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On February 6, 1997, the Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping
duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from Brazil. This
review covers exports of the subject merchandise to the United States
by Branco Peres Citrus S.A. (Branco Peres). The period of review (POR)
is May 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996. This is the ninth period of
review.
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have not changed
the preliminary results. The review indicates that there is no dumping
margin for the above producer/exporter during this POR.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 30, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fabian Rivelis or Irina Itkin, Office
of AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, Import Administration-Room B099,
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone:
(202) 482-3853 or (202) 482-0656, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Applicable Statute
Unless otherwise indicated, all citations to the statute are
references to the provisions effective January 1, 1995, the effective
date of the amendments made to the Tariff Act of 1930 by the Uruguay
Rounds Agreements Act. In addition, unless otherwise indicated, all
citations to the Department's regulations are to the current
regulations, as amended by the interim regulations published in the
Federal Register on May 11, 1995 (60 FR 25130).
Background
On February 6, 1997, the Department of Commerce (the Department)
published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of its
administrative review of the Antidumping Duty Order on FCOJ from Brazil
(62 FR 5588). The Department has now completed that administrative
review in accordance with Sec. 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act).
Scope of the Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of FCOJ from Brazil.
This merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 2009.11.00. Although
the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and Customs purposes,
our written description of the scope of this proceeding is dispositive.
The POR is May 1, 1995 through April 30, 1996.
Analysis of Comments Received
We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
preliminary results. We received comments only from Branco Peres.
Comment 1: Revocation of Antidumping Duty Order--In its Notice of
Preliminary Results, the Department stated that it was not publishing a
Notice of Intent to Revoke for Branco Peres because Branco Peres had
not demonstrated that it sold subject merchandise at not less than
normal value for three consecutive periods of review, in part because
the respondent withdrew its request for review for the previous review
period. Branco Peres argues that this rationale is incorrect. Branco
Peres asserts that the Department's existing regulations for revocation
do not require that there be sales at not less than normal value for
three consecutive administrative periods of review, only that the
Secretary must conclude that the exporter has ``sold the merchandise at
not less than foreign market value for a period of three consecutive
years.'' 19
[[Page 29329]]
CFR 353.25(a). Therefore, respondent maintains that the fact that it
withdrew from the 1994-1995 administrative review is legally
irrelevant. Moreover, Branco Peres states that the Department's
proposed regulation 351.222(d) makes clear that revocation may be
permitted so long as administrative reviews are undertaken in the first
and third administrative reviews. Branco Peres maintains that the
Department is already implementing the proposed regulations in a number
of cases and the clarification set forth in proposed regulation
351.222(d) should apply to the current case.
Branco Peres notes that the revocation issue is moot in the current
review because the Department has not yet issued its results of the
1993-1994 review. However, it argues that once the Department issues
the result of the 1993-1994 review, and if that result is zero or de
minimis, revocation will be appropriate under the Department's existing
and proposed regulations. In this regard, Branco Peres claims that the
liquidation of entries for the 1994-1995 review period demonstrates an
absence of sales at not less than normal value for that period. Thus,
Branco Peres asserts that the Department's final results for the
current review should make clear that revocation is not yet appropriate
only because the Department has not yet completed the results of the
1993-1994 review.
DOC Position: We disagree with Branco Peres. We are administering
this review under the Department's existing regulations because the new
regulations are not yet in effect. Where the existing regulations
contain rules which were not overturned or modified by subsequent
statutory enactment, the Department does not have discretion to ignore
them. 19 CFR 353.25(a). The regulation governing company-specific
partial revocations falls into this category. The respondent's
suggestion that the Department is ignoring the current regulations and
following the proposed regulations is erroneous.
Moreover, although 19 CFR 353.25(a) grants the Department broad
discretion in ordering company-specific partial revocations, this
discretion may be exercised only where, inter alia, the company in
question has ``sold the merchandise at not less than foreign market
value for a period of at least three consecutive years.'' In the third
review of FCOJ from Brazil, the Department denied revocation for a
respondent which had withdrawn from the second period of review. The
respondent had argued that three consecutive individual findings of an
absence of dumped sales are not required for revocation under 19 CFR
353.25(a). The Department responded that ``it is clear that each period
used to justify a revocation under section 353.25(a) must, when
considered individually, evidence a lack of sales at less than foreign
market value.'' See Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil; Final
Results and Termination In Part of Antidumping Administrative Review;
Revocation In Part of the Antidumping Duty Order, 56 FR 52510, 52513,
(October 21, 1991).
The liquidation of entries for the 1994-95 review period, pursuant
to the automatic assessment provisions of the regulations, does not
constitute evidence of an absence of dumped sales for that period. The
Department can conclude that a producer has sold merchandise at not
less than fair value for three consecutive years, within the meaning of
19 CFR 353.25(a), only pursuant to administrative reviews of each of
the three years.
Final Results of the Review
As a result of this review, we determine that the following
weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin
Manufacturer/exporter Period percentage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Branco Peres............................. 5/1/95-4/30/96 0.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between United States price and NV may vary from the
percentage stated above. The Department will issue appraisement
instructions directly to the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective
for all shipments of FCOJ from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after publication date of the final
results of this administrative review, as provided by Sec. 751(a)(1) of
the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Branco Peres will be zero
percent; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not
covered in this review but covered in the original Less Than Fair Value
(LTFV) investigation or a previous review, the cash deposit will
continue to be the most recent rate published in the final
determination or final results for which the manufacturer or exporter
received a company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a previous review, or the original
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
that established for the manufacturer of the merchandise in the final
results of the most recent review, or the LTFV investigation; and (4)
if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this
or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be 1.96 percent, the
``all-others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. These
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26(b) 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 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 published in accordance
with Sec. 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 353.22.
Dated: May 22, 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
[FR Doc. 97-14177 Filed 5-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
