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

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