Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
After analyzing the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, these final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled "Final Results of Review."
On April 11, 2012, the Department published in the
We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review. In May 2012, we received case briefs from the petitioners (
The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).
The scope of this order includes certain orange juice for transport and/or further manufacturing, produced in two different forms: (1) Frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form, sometimes referred to as frozen concentrated orange juice for manufacture (FCOJM); and (2) pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been concentrated, referred to as not-from-concentrate (NFC). At the time of the filing of the petition, there was an existing antidumping duty order on frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from Brazil.
Excluded from the scope of the order are reconstituted orange juice and frozen concentrated orange juice for retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange juice is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, by adding water, oils and essences to the orange juice concentrate. FCOJR is concentrated orange juice, typically at 42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in retail-sized containers ready for sale to consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer product, is produced through further manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk manufacturer's product.
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under subheadings 2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive. Rather, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
The POR is March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011.
As noted in the
Since the preliminary results, no party to this proceeding has commented on this issue, and we have received no new information with respect to this issue. As a result, we continue to find that Louis Dreyfus is the successor-in-interest to Coinbra Frutesp.
As noted in the
As we stated in the
In our May 6, 2003, clarification of the “automatic assessment” regulation, we explained that, where respondents in an administrative review demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding.
As noted in the
As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production (COP) within the meaning of section 773(b) of the Act.
We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below-cost sales were made in “substantial quantities” within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade.
For purposes of these final results, we continue to find that Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales (if any) as the basis for determining normal value (NV), pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Where there were no home market sales made in the ordinary course of trade, we based NV on constructed value.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Decision Memo, dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memo is appended to this notice. The Decision Memo is on file electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo.
We determine that the following weighted-average margin percentages exist for the period March 1, 2010, through February 28, 2011:
The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.
We have calculated importer-specific
The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.
In April 2012, the International Trade Commission (ITC) determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of this order would not be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), 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 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 351.305(a)(3). 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 the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.