Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-605]

Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice From Brazil

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 14, 1995.

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests for an administrative review by

the respondents, Branco Peres Citrus, S.A. (Branco) and CTM Citrus S.A.

(CTM), formerly Citropectina, S.A., the Department of Commerce (the

Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping

duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from Brazil. This

review covers two manufacturers/exporters of FCOJ to the United States

during the period May 1, 1992, through April 30, 1993. We preliminarily

determine the dumping margins for Branco and CTM during this period to

be 2.52 and 0.98 percent, respectively. We invite interested parties to

comment on these preliminary results.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donna Berg or Greg Thompson, Office of

Antidumping Investigations, Import Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-

0114 or 482-3003, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On May 5, 1987, the Department published in the Federal Register an

antidumping duty order on FCOJ from Brazil (52 FR 16426). The

Department published in the Federal Register on April 28, 1993 a notice

of ``Opportunity to Request Administrative Review'' (58 FR 25802) of

the antidumping duty order on FCOJ from Brazil for the period of review

(POR), May 1, 1992, through April 30, 1993. On May 28, 1993,

manufacturers/exporters, Branco and CTM, requested an administrative

review for this POR. Branco also submitted a timely request for

revocation of the antidumping duty order. The manufacturer/exporter,

Frutropic/COINBRA, requested an administrative review for this POR on

June 1, 1993. Accordingly, the Department initiated an administrative

review on June 25, 1993, (58 FR 34414) with respect to Branco and CTM.

On August 24, 1993, (58 FR 44653), we initiated a review with respect

to Frutropic/COINBRA.

The Department issued an antidumping questionnaire to Branco, CTM

and Frutropic/COINBRA on September 22, 1993. On October 11, 1994, the

Department revoked the order with respect to Frutropic/COINBRA in the

final results of the administrative review for the 1991 through 1992

POR (59 FR 53137, 53138, October 21, 1994).

Branco and CTM, on November 2 and 24, 1994, respectively, submitted

their responses to the Department's questionnaire. On April 14, 1994,

the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to both Branco and

CTM. Branco and CTM submitted their responses to these supplemental

questionnaires on May 12, 1994.

Verification of the factual information submitted by Branco in this

review was conducted on June 22 and 23, 1994.

The Department issued a section D, cost of production/constructed

value, questionnaire to Branco and CTM on August 5, 1994, because our

preliminary analysis indicated that for certain U.S. sales,

contemporaneous third country sales were unavailable for comparison

purposes. Branco and CTM submitted comments regarding how foreign

market value should be calculated in this review on August 17 and 18,

1994, respectively. (Note: whereas the Department initially believed

that section D information was necessary, the Department subsequently

revised its determination of the most appropriate methodology to apply

in this review. See the ``Foreign Market Value'' section of this

notice.)

On September 6, 1994, the Department requested clarification of

both Branco's and CTM's responses. Branco and CTM submitted their

responses in September 1994. The Department requested further

information of both respondents on February 14 and March 15, 1995.

Branco and CTM provided this information in March 1995.

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 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

To determine whether sales by Branco and CTM were made at less than

fair value (LTFV), 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 based USP on purchase price, in accordance with section 772(b)

of the Tariff Act, as amended (1994) (The Act), because all of Branco's

and CTM's U.S. sales to the first unrelated purchaser took place prior

to importation into the United States and exporter's sales price

methodology was not otherwise indicated.

We calculated purchase price based on packed FOB prices to

unrelated customers in the United States. We

[[Page 41875]]

made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight and

Brazilian port charges.

Foreign Market Value

In order to determine whether there were sufficient sales of FCOJ

in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating FMV, we

compared each respondents' volume of home market sales of FCOJ to the

volume of third country sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)

of the Act. We found that the home market was not viable for either of

the respondents. Based on each respondent's questionnaire response, we

selected the Netherlands and Germany as the appropriate third country

markets for Branco and CTM, respectively, in accordance with 19 CFR

353.49(b) (see November 2, 1993, submission (page three and exhibit B)

and November 24, 1993, submission (page four)).

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.49(a)(1), we calculated FMV for both

respondents based on third country FOB sales or offers for sale. If a

contemporaneous third country sale was available, we based FMV on the

third country sale. Where contemporaneous third country sales were not

available, we based FMV on the applicable minimum export price 1

as a third country offer for sale. (See Preliminary Results Concurrence

Memorandum, dated June 27, 1995.) We made deductions, where

appropriate, for foreign inland freight, port charges and storage. In

accordance with section 773(a)(1) of the Act, we deducted, as

appropriate, third country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs

(packing costs were not incurred on bulk sales). We made circumstance-

of-sale adjustments, where appropriate, for differences in commission

and credit expenses. The values used for these adjustments varied

depending on whether an actual third country sale or third country

offer for sale was used. For actual third country sales, we used the

reported transaction-specific amounts. For third country offers for

sale, we relied on weighted-average POR values of reported third-

country charges.

\1\ The minimum export price is a floor price set by the

Carteira do Comercio Exterior do Banco do Brasil (CACEX), the export

department of the Bank of Brazil. Minimum export prices are based on

the price of FCOJ on the New York Cotton Exchange. Because the price

movements of FCOJ on the futures market are irregular, the minimum

export price may remain the same or change several times within a

month. It should be noted that during the POR of this sixth review,

both Branco and CTM sold FCOJ at the minimum export price.

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

Since Branco's and CTM's prices are linked to the minimum export

price, we used FMV periods shorter than a month (see Preliminary

Results Concurrence Memorandum, dated June 27, 1995). These shorter

periods were used because the price volatility of minimum export prices

within POR months was significant enough to have artificially increased

or decreased dumping margins (see Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from

Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and

Revocation of Order in Part, (59 FR 53137, October 21, 1994)). Periods

were created based on a change in the minimum export price throughout

the continuum of the POR (see Preliminary Results Concurrence

Memorandum, dated June 27, 1995).

Preliminary Results of the Review

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the dumping

margins to be:

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

Margin

Manufacturer/exporter Time period (percent)

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

Branco.................................... 5/1/92-4/30/93 2.52

CTM....................................... 5/1/92-4/30/93 0.98

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

Individual differences between USP and FMV may vary from the

percentages stated above. Upon completion of this administrative

review, the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to

the U.S. Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective

for all shipments of FCOJ 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

Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed company will be that

established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for

previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the

cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate

published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm

covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is such a firm, the cash deposit

rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the

manufacturer of FCOJ.

On May 25, 1993, the Court of International Trade (CIT) in Floral

Trade Council v. United States, Slip Op. 93-79, and Federal-Mogul

Corporation v. United States, Slip Op. 93-83, decided that once an

``all others'' rate is established for a company, it can only be

changed through an administrative review. The Department has determined

that in order to implement these decisions, it is appropriate to

reinstate the original ``all others'' rate from the LTFV investigation

(or that rate as amended for correction of clerical errors or as a

result of litigation) in proceedings governed by antidumping duty

orders for the purposes of establishing cash deposits in all current

and future administrative reviews. Because this proceeding is governed

by an antidumping duty order, the ``all others'' rate for the purposes

of this review will be 1.96 percent ad valorem, the ``all others'' rate

established in the LTFV investigation (52 FR 8324, March 17, 1987).

This notice also serves as a preliminary 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 and the subsequent

assessment of double antidumping duties.

Public Comment

Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a

written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room B-099, within ten days of

publication. Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and

telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the

issues to be discussed.

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38, case briefs or other written

comments in at least ten copies must be submitted to the Assistant

Secretary no later than August 25, 1995, and rebuttal briefs no later

than August 29, 1995. A public hearing, if requested, will be held on

August 31, 1995, at 10:00 am at the U.S. Department of Commerce, in

Room 1851, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC

20230. Parties should confirm by telephone the time, date, and place of

the hearing 48 hours prior to the scheduled time. In accordance with 19

CFR 353.38(b), oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in

the briefs. The Department will publish a notice of final results of

this administrative review, including an analysis of issues raised in

any written comments.

This result is published pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act

and 19 CFR 353.22.

[[Page 41876]]

Dated: August 8, 1995.

Susan G. Esserman,

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

[FR Doc. 95-20025 Filed 8-11-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P