Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19315 

A copy of the application will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Executive Secretary, 

Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading 

Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site, 

which is accessible via http:// 

www.trade.gov/ftz. For further 

information, contact Christopher Kemp 

at Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov or (202) 

482–0862. 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Andrew McGilvray, 

Executive Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8349 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–840] 

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping 

Duty Order in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the 

petitioners and two producers/exporters 

of the subject merchandise, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

orange juice (OJ) from Brazil with 

respect to four producers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States. This is the fourth period of 

review (POR), covering March 1, 2009, 

through February 28, 2010. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that sales to the United States have been 

made below normal value (NV), and, 

therefore, are subject to antidumping 

duties. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hector Rodriguez or Blaine Wiltse, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0629 or (202) 482– 

6345, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In March 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

orange juice from Brazil. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 12183 

(Mar. 9, 2006) (OJ Order). Subsequently, 

on March 1, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of certain 

orange juice from Brazil for the period 

March 1, 2009, through February 28, 

2010. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 9162 (Mar. 1, 2010). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2), in March 2010, the 

Department received requests to 

conduct an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on OJ from 

Brazil from two producers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise, Fischer S.A. 

Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura 

(Fischer) and Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. 

(Cutrale). In Cutrale’s request for an 

administrative review, it also requested 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order with respect to its sales of subject 

merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.222(b). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), also in March 2010, the 

petitioners (Florida Citrus Mutual, A. 

Duda & Sons, Citrus World Inc., and 

Southern Gardens Citrus Processing 

Corporation), also requested that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review for Cutrale and Fischer, as well 

as for two additional producers/ 

exporters: Montecitrus Trading S.A. 

(Montecitrus) and Coinbra-Frutesp (SA) 

(Coinbra-Frutesp). In April 2010, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review for all four companies. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 75 FR 22107 (Apr. 27, 2010). Also 

in April 2010, we issued questionnaires 

to Coinbra-Frutesp, Cutrale, Fischer, 

and Montecitrus. 

In May 2010, we received statements 

from Coinbra-Frutesp and Montecitrus 

that they had no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. 

From May through July 2010, we 

received responses to section A of the 

questionnaire (i.e., the section covering 

general information) from Cutrale and 

Fischer, as well as responses to sections 

B and C of the questionnaire (i.e., the 

sections covering sales in the home 

market and United States) and section D 

(i.e., the section covering cost of 

production (COP)/constructed value 

(CV)). 

From August through November 2010, 

we issued supplemental sales and cost 

questionnaires to Cutrale and Fischer. 

We received responses to these 

supplemental questionnaires from 

September through November 2010. 

On November 16, 2010, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results of this review 

until no later than March 31, 2010. See 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Notice 

of Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

69917 (Nov. 16, 2010). 

From December 2010 through March 

2011, we issued Cutrale and Fischer 

additional supplemental sales and cost 

questionnaires. We received responses 

to these supplemental questionnaires 

from January through March 2011. 

Finally, in March 2011, we requested 

that Cutrale provide additional 

information regarding its indirect selling 

expenses. Because this information was 

not received in time for use in the 

preliminary results, we expect to 

consider this information in the final 

results. 

Scope of the Order 

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. See Antidumping Duty Order; 

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from 

Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). 

Therefore, the scope of this order with 

regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM 

produced and/or exported by those 

companies which were excluded or 

revoked from the pre-existing 

antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil 

as of December 27, 2004. Those 

companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada, 

Coinbra-Frutesp, Cutrale, Fischer, and 

Montecitrus. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19316 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

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. 

Determination Not To Revoke Order, in 

Part 

The Department may revoke, in whole 

or in part, an antidumping duty order 

upon completion of a review under 

section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). While Congress has 

not specified the procedures that the 

Department must follow in revoking an 

order, the Department has developed a 

procedure for revocation that is 

described in 19 CFR 351.222. This 

regulation requires, inter alia, that a 

company requesting revocation must 

submit the following: (1) A certification 

that the company has sold the subject 

merchandise at not less than NV in the 

current review period and that the 

company will not sell subject 

merchandise at less than NV in the 

future; (2) a certification that the 

company sold commercial quantities of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States in each of the three years forming 

the basis of the request; and (3) an 

agreement to immediate reinstatement 

of the order if the Department concludes 

that the company, subsequent to the 

revocation, sold subject merchandise at 

less than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). 

Upon receipt of such a request, the 

Department will consider: (1) Whether 

the company in question has sold 

subject merchandise at not less than NV 

for a period of at least three consecutive 

years; (2) whether the company has 

agreed in writing to its immediate 

reinstatement in the order, as long as 

any exporter or producer is subject to 

the order, if the Department concludes 

that the company, subsequent to the 

revocation, sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV; and (3) 

whether the continued application of 

the antidumping duty order is otherwise 

necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2)(i). 

On March 31, 2010, Cutrale requested 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order with respect to its sales of subject 

merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.222(b). This request was 

accompanied by certification that: (1) 

Cutrale sold the subject merchandise at 

not less than NV during the current POR 

and will not sell the merchandise at less 

than NV in the future; and (2) it sold 

subject merchandise to the United 

States in commercial quantities for a 

period of at least three consecutive 

years. Cutrale also agreed to immediate 

reinstatement of the antidumping duty 

order, as long as any exporter or 

producer is subject to the order, if the 

Department concludes that, subsequent 

to the revocation, it sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV. 

In its revocation request, filed in this 

fourth administrative review, Cutrale 

argued that the Department found 

dumping margins below de minimis 

levels in the first administrative review. 

Although Cutrale acknowledged that the 

Department found dumping margins in 

the second administrative review, it 

argued that the margins were based 

upon the application of zeroing, which 

the World Trade Organization (WTO) 

has found to be inconsistent with 

international obligations. Cutrale states 

that there is an ongoing WTO dispute 

between Brazil and the United States 

regarding zeroing and that it believes 

that without zeroing it will have zero 

dumping margins for all administrative 

reviews thus far conducted or 

underway. 

After analyzing Cutrale’s request for 

revocation, we preliminarily find that it 

does not meet all of the criteria under 

19 CFR 351.222(b). Pursuant to the 

regulation, upon receipt of a request for 

revocation, the Department will 

consider: (1) Whether the company in 

question has sold subject merchandise 

at not less than NV for a period of at 

least three consecutive years; (2) 

whether the company has agreed in 

writing to its immediate reinstatement 

in the order, as long as any exporter or 

producer is subject to the order, if the 

Department concludes that the 

company, subsequent to the revocation, 

sold the subject merchandise at less 

than NV; and (3) whether the continued 

application of the antidumping duty 

order is otherwise necessary to offset 

dumping. See 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i). 

In this case, our preliminary margin 

calculation for the fourth administrative 

review shows that Cutrale did not sell 

the subject merchandise at less than NV 

during the current review period. See 

‘‘Preliminary Results of the Review’’ 

section below. However, in the second 

and third administrative reviews, 

Cutrale received antidumping duty 

margins above de minimis. See Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 40167 (Aug. 11, 2009) 

(2007–2008 OJ from Brazil); and Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent Not To 

Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in 

Part, 75 FR 50999 (Aug. 18, 2010) 

(2008–2009 OJ from Brazil). 

Accordingly, while the Department 

preliminarily finds that Cutrale did not 

sell the subject merchandise at less than 

NV in this segment of the proceeding, 

we have found that Cutrale sold the 

subject merchandise at less than NV in 

the two most recently-completed 

administrative reviews (i.e., the second 

and third administrative reviews). 

Cutrale’s speculation as to what 

antidumping margins might have been 

calculated in prior reviews had the 

Department used a different 

methodology does not provide a basis 

for revocation. The principles of 

administrative finality apply to these 

completed reviews. Cutrale did not 

successfully challenge the final results 

of the second administrative review in 

court and, thus, they are final and 

conclusive. Although Cutrale has 

challenged the final results of the third 

administrative review before the Court 

of International Trade, unless or until 

there is a final and conclusive court 

decision invalidating these results, by 

statute, these results are presumed to be 

correct. See Shandong Huarong Gen. 

Group Corp. v. United States, 122 

F.Supp. 2d 143, 148 (CIT 2000) (‘‘By 

statute, Commerce’s administrative 

review determinations are presumed to 

be correct and the burden of proving 

otherwise rests exclusively upon the 

party challenging such decision.’’) 

(citing 28 U.S.C. 2639a(1)). Because the 

results of the administrative reviews are 

presumed to be correct for a court action 

appealing them, they must also be 

presumed to be correct in the context of 

a revocation request. Cutrale’s filing of 

an appeal of the final results of the third 

administrative review to a court does 

not render the final results incorrect or 

unlawful. 

With respect to Cutrale’s argument 

that Brazil has challenged zeroing before 

the WTO, we acknowledge that there is 

an ongoing WTO dispute between Brazil 

and the United States regarding zeroing. 

However, this dispute is yet to be 

resolved by the WTO, including any 

potential appeals. More importantly, 

WTO reports do not provide an 

independent basis for altering the 

Department’s methodology, except to 

the extent that they are implemented 

pursuant to a specified statutory 

scheme. See Corus Staal BV v. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19317 

Department of Commerce, 395 F.3d 

1343, 1347, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005), cert 

denied, 126 S. Ct. 1023, 163 L. Ed. 2d 

853 (January 9, 2006). There have been 

no WTO reports implemented in any 

fashion that would necessitate any 

change in the Department’s 

methodology in this administrative 

review or prior administrative reviews 

of this antidumping duty order. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that Cutrale does not qualify for 

revocation of the order on OJ pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), and thus, that 

the order with respect to such 

merchandise should not be revoked. 

Preliminary Determination of No 

Shipments 

As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, Coinbra-Frutesp and Montecitrus 

indicated that they had no shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. The Department 

subsequently confirmed with CBP the 

no-shipment claim made by these two 

companies. Because the evidence on the 

record indicates that these companies 

did not export subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR, we 

preliminarily determine that neither 

Coinbra-Frutesp nor Montecitrus had 

any reviewable transactions during the 

POR. 

Since the implementation of the 1997 

regulations, our practice concerning noshipment respondents has been to 

rescind the administrative review if the 

respondent certifies that it had no 

shipments and we have confirmed 

through our examination of CBP data 

that there were no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 

1997). As a result, in such 

circumstances, we normally instruct 

CBP to liquidate any entries from the 

no-shipment company at the deposit 

rate in effect on the date of entry. 

In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ clarification, 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. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). 

Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation 

instructions do not alleviate the 

concerns which the May 2003 

clarification was intended to address, 

we find it appropriate in this case to 

instruct CBP to liquidate any existing 

entries of merchandise produced by 

Coinbra-Frutesp or Montecitrus, and 

exported by other parties, at the allothers rate. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal 

From the Russian Federation: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in 

Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 56989 (Sept. 17, 2010). In 

addition, the Department finds that it is 

more consistent with the May 2003 

clarification not to rescind the review in 

part in these circumstances but, rather, 

to complete the review with respect to 

Coinbra-Frutesp and Montecitrus and 

issue appropriate instructions to CBP 

based on the final results of the review. 

See the ‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of 

this notice below. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of OJ by 

Cutrale and Fischer to the United States 

were made at less than NV, we 

compared constructed export price 

(CEP) to the NV, as described in the 

‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Act, we compared the CEPs of 

individual U.S. transactions to the 

weighted-average NV of the foreign like 

product where there were sales made in 

the ordinary course of trade, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Cutrale and Fischer 

covered by the description in the ‘‘Scope 

of the Order’’ section, above, to be 

foreign like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. 

sales of OJ to sales of OJ in the home 

market within the contemporaneous 

window period, which extends from 

three months prior to the month of the 

first U.S. sale until two months after the 

last U.S. sale. Where there were no sales 

of identical merchandise in the home 

market made in the ordinary course of 

trade to compare to U.S. sales, we 

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most 

similar foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making 

product comparisons, we matched 

foreign like products based on the 

physical characteristics reported by the 

respondents in the following order of 

importance: Product type and organic 

designation. Where there were no sales 

of identical or similar merchandise, we 

made product comparisons using CV, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Calculation of Normal 

Value Based on Constructed Value’’ 

section below. See section 773(a)(4) of 

the Act. 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP for those 

sales where the merchandise was first 

sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 

States before or after the date of 

importation by or for the account of the 

producer or exporter, or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter. In this case, we 

are treating all of Cutrale’s and Fischer’s 

U.S. sales as CEP sales because they 

were made in the United States by their 

U.S. affiliates on behalf of the 

respondents, within the meaning of 

section 772(b) of the Act. 

A. Cutrale 

We based CEP on the packed 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. For 

sales made pursuant to futures 

contracts, we adjusted the reported 

gross unit price (i.e., the notice price) to 

include gains and losses incurred on the 

futures contract which resulted in the 

shipment of subject merchandise. 

Additionally, for certain sales made 

pursuant to futures contracts which 

were noticed prior to the POR, but were 

shipped and invoiced during the POR, 

we adjusted the reported date of sale for 

these transactions to base it on the 

invoice date. We also adjusted the 

reported data to account for the 

difference between the reported and 

actual brix levels, as indicated on the 

invoice, at which the U.S. product was 

sold. In a small number of instances 

where the invoice did not reflect the 

actual brix level, we used the reported 

brix data. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for billing adjustments and 

rebates. 

In addition, we made deductions for 

movement expenses, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight; foreign warehousing 

expenses; foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses; ocean freight; U.S. 

brokerage and handling (offset by 

customer-specific reimbursements); U.S. 

customs duties, harbor maintenance fees 

and merchandise processing fees (offset 

by U.S. duty drawback and customs 

duty reimbursements); U.S. inland 

freight expenses; and U.S. warehousing 

expenses. We capped reimbursements 

for brokerage and handling expenses by 

the amount of brokerage and handling 

expenses incurred on the subject 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19318 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

1Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling, general and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. 

merchandise, in accordance with our 

practice. See, e.g, Certain Orange Juice 

from Brazil: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 

(Aug. 11, 2008) (2005–2007 OJ from 

Brazil), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; 

2007–2008 OJ from Brazil at Comment 

3; and 2008–2009 OJ from Brazil at 

Comment 2. We also capped U.S. 

customs duty reimbursements, as well 

as U.S. duty drawback, by the amount 

of U.S. customs duties incurred on the 

subject merchandise, in accordance 

with our practice. Id. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (i.e., 

bank charges, commissions, imputed 

credit expenses, and repacking (offset by 

pallet and drum revenue)), and indirect 

selling expenses (including inventory 

carrying costs and other indirect selling 

expenses). We capped U.S. pallet 

revenue and drum revenue by the 

amount of repacking expenses, in 

accordance with our practice. Id. In 

addition, we recalculated inventory 

carrying costs using the manufacturing 

costs reported in Cutrale’s most recent 

cost response, adjusted as noted in the 

‘‘Calculation of Cost of Production’’ 

section of this notice, below. 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by Cutrale and its U.S. affiliate on their 

sales of the subject merchandise in the 

United States and the profit associated 

with those sales. 

For further discussion of the changes 

made to Cutrale’s reported U.S. sales 

data, see the March 31, 2011, 

memorandum from Blaine Wiltse, 

Analyst, to the File, entitled 

‘‘Calculation Adjustments for 

Sucocitrico Cutrale Ltda. for the 

Preliminary Results’’ (Cutrale Sales 

Calculation Memo). 

B. Fischer 

We based CEP on the packed 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. In 

addition, we made deductions for 

movement expenses, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight expenses; foreign 

warehousing expenses; foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses; ocean 

freight expenses; marine insurance 

expenses; U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses; U.S. customs duties, harbor 

maintenance fees and merchandise 

processing fees (offset by U.S. duty 

drawback); U.S. inland freight expenses; 

and U.S. warehousing expenses. We 

capped reimbursements for U.S. 

customs duties, as well as U.S. duty 

drawback, by the amount of U.S. 

customs duties incurred on the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with our 

practice. See 2005–2007 OJ from Brazil 

at Comment 7; 2007–2008 OJ from 

Brazil at Comment 3, and 2008–2009 OJ 

from Brazil at Comment 2. Further, we 

determined that the international freight 

expenses provided by Fischer’s 

affiliated freight provider were not at 

arm’s length. Therefore, for all sales 

shipped by Fischer’s affiliate, we 

assigned the international freight rate 

charged by Fischer’s affiliate to an 

unaffiliated party to restate them on an 

arm’s-length basis. For further 

discussion, see the March 31, 2011, 

memorandum to the file from Hector 

Rodriguez, Analyst, entitled 

‘‘Calculations Performed for Fischer S.A. 

Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura for 

the Preliminary Results in the 2009– 

2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Orange Juice from 

Brazil’’ (Fischer Sales Calculation 

Memo). 

In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (i.e., 

additional processing expenses, 

imputed credit expenses, and 

repacking), and indirect selling 

expenses (including inventory carrying 

costs, and other indirect selling 

expenses). In addition, we recalculated 

inventory carrying costs using the 

manufacturing costs reported in 

Fischer’s most recent cost response, 

adjusted as noted in the ‘‘Calculation of 

Cost of Production’’ section of this 

notice, below. 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by Fischer and its U.S. affiliate on their 

sales of the subject merchandise in the 

United States and the profit associated 

with those sales. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and Selection 

of Comparison Markets 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of 

the Act. 

We determined that the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product for each respondent 

was sufficient to permit a proper 

comparison with its U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise. 

B. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as 

the export price (EP) or CEP. Sales are 

made at different LOTs if they are made 

at different marketing stages (or their 

equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id. See also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) 

(Plate from South Africa). In order to 

determine whether the comparison 

market sales were at different stages in 

the marketing process than the U.S. 

sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution), including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 

on either home market or third country 

prices),1 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 

we consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Act. See Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 

F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make an 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19319 

2This finding is also consistent with Cutrale’s 

statement that there were no significant differences 

between the sales activities that it performed during 

the current POR and those which it performed in 

both markets during the previous segment of the 

proceeding. See Cutrale’s supplemental section A 

response, submitted on September 8, 2010, at page 

3. 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 

sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

CEP LOT and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from each 

respondent regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

home market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed by each respondent for each 

channel of distribution. Companyspecific LOT findings are summarized 

below. 

1. Cutrale 

Cutrale reported that it made CEP 

sales through one channel of 

distribution in the United States (i.e., 

sales via an affiliated reseller) and thus 

the selling activities it performed did 

not vary by the type of customer. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for this channel and found 

that Cutrale performed the following 

selling functions: order input/ 

processing, freight and delivery, 

packing, maintaining inventory at the 

port of exportation, and quality testing. 

Selling activities can be generally 

grouped into four selling function 

categories for analysis: (1) Sales and 

marketing; (2) freight and delivery; (3) 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and (4) warranty and 

technical support. See 2008–2009 OJ 

from Brazil at Comment 7 and Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 9991, 

9996 (Mar. 9, 2009), unchanged in 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

India: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 33409 

(July 13, 2009). Based on these selling 

function categories, we find that Cutrale 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing for U.S. 

sales. Because all sales in the United 

States are made through a single 

distribution channel, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, 

Cutrale reported that it made sales 

through one channel of distribution (i.e., 

direct sales to soft drink manufacturers). 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for home market sales and 

found that Cutrale performed the 

following selling functions: order input/ 

processing, advertising via sponsorship 

of a soccer team, freight and delivery, 

packing, and inventory maintenance at 

the factory. In addition to these 

functions, Cutrale also claimed that it 

offered quality guarantees, engineering 

services, and after-sales services to 

home market customers. With respect to 

engineering services and after-sales 

services, we disagree that the record 

supports Cutrale’s claims. Rather, the 

record shows that Cutrale provided no 

such services other than holding a 

single meeting with one customer in 

which certain topics were discussed. 

Because the specifics of this meeting are 

business proprietary in nature, they 

cannot be disclosed here. For further 

discussion, see the Cutrale Sales 

Calculation Memo. Accordingly, based 

on the four selling function categories 

listed above, we find that Cutrale 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery, inventory maintenance 

and warehousing, and warranty and 

technical support for home market sales. 

Because all home market sales are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the home market for Cutrale. 

Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

and home market customers do not 

differ significantly. Specifically, we 

found that the differences were limited 

to the following activities: (1) Cutrale 

performed limited advertising in the 

home market (i.e., the sponsorship of a 

local soccer team in Brazil); (2) Cutrale 

entered orders into the company’s 

computer system for home market sales 

based on orders placed by customers, 

while it generated sales documents for 

sales to its U.S. affiliate based on a 

general shipping schedule; (3) Cutrale 

provided post-sale services consisting of 

a single meeting with one customer; and 

(4) Cutrale provided additional quality 

testing in the home market which was 

limited to a small number of basic 

screenings for each batch of orange juice 

produced. 

According to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), 

the Department will determine that 

sales are made at different levels of 

trade if they are made at different 

marketing stages (or their equivalent). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stage of 

marketing. Therefore, because we 

determine that substantial differences in 

Cutrale’s selling activities do not exist 

across markets, we determine that sales 

to the U.S. and home markets during the 

POR were made at the same LOT. As a 

result, neither a LOT adjustment nor a 

CEP offset is warranted for Cutrale. This 

determination is consistent with 

findings in previous reviews.2 See, e.g., 

2005–2007 OJ from Brazil at Comment 

5; 2007–2008 OJ from Brazil at 

Comment 2; and 2008–2009 OJ from 

Brazil at Comment 7. 

2. Fischer 

Fischer reported that it made CEP 

sales through one channel of 

distribution in the United States (i.e., 

sales via an affiliated reseller) and, thus, 

the selling activities it performed did 

not vary by the type of customer. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for this channel and found 

that Fischer performed the following 

selling functions: customer contact and 

price negotiation; order processing; 

arranging for freight and the provision 

of customs clearance/brokerage services; 

and inventory maintenance. Selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

four selling function categories for 

analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) 

freight and delivery; (3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and (4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, based on these selling 

function categories, we find that Fischer 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing for U.S. 

sales. Because all sales in the United 

States are made through a single 

distribution channel, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, 

Fischer reported that it made sales 

through one channel of distribution and 

that the selling activities it performed 

did not vary by the type of customer. 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for home market sales, and 

found that Fischer performed the 

following selling functions: customer 

contact and price negotiation; order 

processing; arranging for freight; cold 

storage and inventory maintenance; 

sales and marketing support; and 

technical assistance. Accordingly, based 

on the selling function categories listed 

above, we find that Fischer performed 

sales and marketing, freight and 

delivery services, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19320 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

warranty and technical support for 

home market sales. Because all home 

market sales are made through a single 

distribution channel, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

home market for Fischer. 

Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

and home market customers do not 

differ significantly. Therefore, we 

determine that sales to the U.S. and 

home markets during the POR were 

made at the same LOT, and as a result, 

neither a LOT adjustment nor a CEP 

offset is warranted for Fischer. 

C. Affiliated-Party Transactions and 

Arm’s-Length Test 

During the POR, Cutrale made sales in 

the home market to an affiliated party, 

as defined in section 771(33) of the Act. 

Consequently, we tested these sales to 

ensure that they were made at arm’slength prices, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.403(c). To test whether the 

sales to the affiliate were made at arm’slength prices, we compared the unit 

prices of sales to the affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, and packing expenses. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, where the price to that 

affiliated party was, on average, within 

a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price 

of the same or comparable merchandise 

sold to the unaffiliated parties at the 

same LOT, we determined that the sales 

made to the affiliated party were at 

arm’s-length. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (Nov. 15, 2002) (establishing that 

the overall ratio calculated for an 

affiliate must be between 98 and 102 

percent in order for sales to be 

considered in the ordinary course of 

trade and used in the NV calculation). 

Sales to affiliated customers in the home 

market that were not made at arm’slength prices were excluded from our 

analysis because we considered these 

sales to be outside the ordinary course 

of trade. See section 771(15) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.102(b). 

D. Cost of Production Analysis 

We found that both Cutrale and 

Fischer made sales below the COP in 

the 2007–2008 administrative review, 

the most recently completed segment of 

this proceeding as of the date of 

initiation of this review, and such sales 

were disregarded. See 2007–2008 OJ 

from Brazil, 74 FR at 40167. Thus, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 

of the Act, there are reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that Cutrale and 

Fischer made home market sales at 

prices below the cost of producing the 

merchandise in the current POR. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the 

respondents’ COPs based on the sum of 

their costs of materials and conversion 

for the foreign like product, plus 

amounts for general and administrative 

(G&A) expenses and interest expenses 

(see ‘‘Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices’’ section, below, for treatment of 

home market selling expenses). 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by each respondent in its 

most recently submitted cost database 

for the COP calculation, except in the 

following instances: 

a. Cutrale 

i. We used Cutrale’s home market 

actual brix level data to adjust Cutrale’s 

home market costs to ensure that these 

are stated on a pounds-solid basis using 

actual brix. For further discussion of 

this adjustment, see the Cutrale Sales 

Calculation Memo. 

ii. We adjusted Cutrale’s financial 

expense ratio by limiting the interest 

income offset to income earned on 

short-term investments of its working 

capital. For further discussion of this 

adjustment, see the March 31, 2011, 

Memorandum from Gary Urso, 

Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director 

Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Sucocitrico 

Cutrale Ltda.’’ 

b. Fischer 

i. We revised Fischer’s reported perunit raw material costs to reflect the 

POR cost of purchases and purchase 

price adjustments as recorded in 

Fischer’s normal books and records. 

ii. We revised Fischer’s G&A 

calculation to include losses on the 

disposition of fixed assets and the 

eradication of orange trees. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the March 31, 2011, 

Memorandum from Frederick Mines, 

Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director 

Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Fischer S.A. 

Comercio, Industria and Agricultura.’’ 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

prices of the foreign like product, as 

required under section 773(b) of the Act, 

in order to determine whether the sales 

prices were below the COP. For 

purposes of this comparison, we used 

COP exclusive of selling and packing 

expenses. The prices (inclusive of 

billing adjustments, where appropriate) 

were exclusive of any applicable 

movement charges, direct and indirect 

selling expenses and packing expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act: (1) Whether, within an extended 

period of time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities; and (2) whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time in 

the normal course of trade. Where less 

than 20 percent of the respondent’s 

home market sales of a given product 

are at prices less than the COP, we do 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that product, because we determine that 

in such instances the below-cost sales 

were not made within an extended 

period of time and in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of 

a respondent’s sales of a given product 

are at prices less than the COP, we 

disregard the below-cost sales when: (1) 

They were made within an extended 

period of time in ‘‘substantial 

quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and 2) 

based on our comparison of prices to the 

weighted-average COPs for the POR, 

they were at prices which would not 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act. 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of Cutrale’s and 

Fischer’s home market sales were at 

prices less than the COP and, in 

addition, such sales did not provide for 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We therefore excluded 

these sales from our analysis. We used 

the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV for Cutrale and Fischer 

in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of 

the Act. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

1. Cutrale 

For Cutrale, we calculated NV based 

on ex-factory prices to unaffiliated 

customers. We made adjustments, 

where appropriate, to the starting price 

for billing adjustments, in accordance 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 19321 

with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made 

adjustments, where appropriate, to the 

starting price for Brazilian taxes, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) 

of the Act. 

In addition we made deductions 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the 

Act for home market credit expenses 

(offset by interest revenue). We 

recalculated Cutrale’s home market 

credit expenses to base the calculation 

on the gross unit price net of taxes and 

billing adjustments. Where applicable, 

in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), 

we offset any commission paid on a U.S. 

sale by reducing the NV by the amount 

of home market indirect selling 

expenses and inventory carrying costs, 

up to the amount of the U.S. 

commission. We capped Cutrale’s 

interest revenue by the amount of credit 

expenses, in accordance with our 

practice. See, e.g., 2005–2007 OJ from 

Brazil at Comment 7; 2007–2008 OJ 

from Brazil at Comment 3, and 2008– 

2009 OJ from Brazil at Comment 2. We 

recalculated home market inventory 

carrying costs using the manufacturing 

costs reported in Cutrale’s most recent 

cost response, adjusted as noted in the 

‘‘Calculation of Cost of Production’’ 

section of this notice, above. For further 

discussion of these adjustments, see the 

Cutrale Sales Calculation Memo. 

We deducted home market packing 

costs and added U.S. packing costs, 

where appropriate, in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

Finally, we made adjustments for 

differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

2. Fischer 

We calculated NV based on delivered 

prices to unaffiliated customers. We 

made adjustments, where appropriate, 

to the starting price for billing 

adjustments and other discounts in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 

also made adjustments, where 

appropriate, to the starting price for 

Brazilian taxes, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. We 

made deductions for foreign inland 

freight expenses and inland insurance 

expenses, in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

In addition, we made deductions 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the 

Act for home market credit expenses 

(offset by interest revenue). We capped 

Fischer’s interest revenue by the amount 

of credit expenses, in accordance with 

our practice. See, e.g, 2005–2007 OJ 

from Brazil at Comment 7; 2007–2008 

OJ from Brazil at Comment 3, and 2008– 

2009 OJ from Brazil at Comment 2. 

We deducted home market packing 

costs and added U.S. packing costs, in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. 

Finally, we made adjustments for 

differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, for those OJ 

products for which we could not 

determine the NV based on comparisonmarket sales, either because there were 

no useable sales of a comparable 

product or all sales of the comparable 

products failed the COP test, we based 

NV on CV. 

Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 

CV shall be based on the sum of the cost 

of materials and fabrication for the 

imported merchandise, plus amounts 

for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. We calculated the cost of 

materials and fabrication based on the 

methodology described in the 

‘‘Calculation of Cost of Production’’ 

section, above. We based SG&A and 

profit for Fischer on the actual amounts 

incurred and realized by the 

respondents in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

for consumption in the home market, in 

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of 

the Act. 

For comparisons to CEP, we deducted 

home market direct selling expenses 

from CV. Id. We also made adjustments, 

where applicable, for home market 

indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 

commissions. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

March 1, 2009, through February 28, 

2010, as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. ......... 0.41 

(de minimis) 

Fischer S.A. Comercio, 

Industria, and Agricultura.

3.96 

Coinbra-Frutesp (SA) .............. * 

Montecitrus Trading S.A. ........ * 

* No shipments or sales subject to this 

review. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit cases 

briefs not later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, may be filed not later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing the case briefs. Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1870, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. The 

Department intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

the issues raised in any written briefs, 

not later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

We will calculate importer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

19322 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 67 / Thursday, April 7, 2011 / Notices 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the sales. We will instruct CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy 

Notice. This clarification will apply to 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, 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, or the original less than fair 

value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters of NFC, and for FCOJM 

produced and/or exported by Cargill 

Citrus Limitada and Coinbra-Frutesp 

will continue to be 16.51 percent, the 

all-others rate made effective by the 

LTFV investigation. See OJ Order, 71 FR 

at 12184. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) 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 administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: March 31, 2011. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–8324 Filed 4–6–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On November 12, 2010, the 

Department of Commerce (Department) 

published preliminary results for the 

new shipper reviews (NSRs) of fresh 

garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC) covering the period of 

review (POR) November 1, 2008, 

through October 31, 2009. See Fresh 

Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of New 

Shipper Reviews and Preliminary 

Rescission, in Part, 75 FR 69415 

(November 12, 2010) (Preliminary 

Results). The reviews covered three 

respondents: Jinxiang Chengda Imp & 

Exp Co., Ltd. (Chengda), Zhengzhou 

Huachao Industrial Co., Ltd. (Huachao), 

and Jinxiang Yuanxin Imp & Exp Co., 

Ltd. (Yuanxin). 

As discussed below, we preliminarily 

found that Yuanxin’s and Huachao’s 

sales were bona fide and that these sales 

were made in the United States at prices 

below normal value (NV). In addition, 

we found Chengda’s sales to be not bona 

fide, and announced our preliminary 

intent to rescind Chengda’s new shipper 

review. For the final results of this 

review, we are finding the sales of all 

three respondents, Chengda, Huachao, 

and Yuanxin, to be not bona fide. 

Therefore, because there were no other 

shipments or entries by these three 

companies during the POR, we are 

rescinding these new shipper reviews. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 7, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Lindsay, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0780. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the Preliminary Results, the 

following events have occurred. On 

December 2, 2010, surrogate value 

information was placed on the record by 

Huachao. On December 30, 2010, the 

Department extended the time limit for 

the final results of this new shipper 

review. On January 26, 2011, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Yuanxin. On January 

27, 2011, the Department issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Huachao. 

On February 4, 2011, the Department 

issued a letter to Yuanxin concerning 

the business proprietary designation of 

the company’s Web site address. 

On February 4, 2011, the Department 

issued the briefing schedule for briefs 

addressing all issues except the bona 

fides of Huachao’s and Yuanxin’s 

respective sales. On February 8, 2011, 

Yuanxin requested an extension to the 

deadlines as established in the February 

4, 2011 briefing schedule. On February 

9, 2011, the Department issued an 

extension of this briefing schedule, with 

briefs due February 17, 2011, and 

rebuttal briefs due February 22, 2011. 

On February 14, 2011, the Department 

placed information related to Jinxiang 

Hejia Co., Ltd.’s NSR sale to the United 

States, from the 2007/2008 NSR, on the 

record of this review. Huachao and 

Yuanxin submitted supplemental 

questionnaire responses on February 14, 

2011. Yuanxin also submitted its case 

brief on February 14, 2011. On February 

15, 2011, the Department placed 

memoranda on the record of this review 

that included information related to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES