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

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