50952 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices 

1We extended the end of the period of review 

(POR) from April 30, 2007 to June 9, 2008, to 

capture entries for three respondents. See the 

‘‘Expansion of the POR’’ section in the Preliminary 

Results. 

Dated: September 28, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–23833 Filed 10–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–831] 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Final Rescission, In Part, of New 

Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting the new 

shipper reviews (NSRs) of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC) covering the periods of review 

(PORs) of November 1, 2007 through 

April 30, 2008 and November 1, 2007 

through June 9, 2008.1 As discussed 

below, we determine that sales have 

been made in the United States at prices 

below normal value (NV) with respect to 

two exporters who participated fully 

and have demonstrated their eligibility 

for separate rates in the NSR: Chengwu 

County Yuanxiang Industry & 

Commerce, Ltd. (Yuanxiang) and 

Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. (Hejia). In the 

preliminary results of this review, we 

found Yuanxiang’s and Hejia’s POR 

sales were made on a bona fide basis. 

See Fresh Garlic From the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

of New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 20452 

(May 4, 2009) (Preliminary Results). We 

are continuing to find Yuanxiang’s and 

Hejia’s sales to be bona fide for the final 

results of this review. In addition, we 

are rescinding the NSRs for four 

companies: Weifang Chenglong Import 

& Export Co., Ltd. (Chenglong), Jinxiang 

Tianheng Trade Co., Ltd. (Tianheng), 

Jinxiang Zhengyang Import & Export 

Co., Ltd. (Zhengyang), and Juye 

Homestead Fruits and Vegetables Co., 

Ltd. (Juye). We intend to instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to 

assess antidumping duties on entries of 

subject merchandise during the POR for 

which importer–specific assessment 

rates are above de minimis. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Page, Scott Lindsay, or Summer Avery, 

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) 482–1398, (202) 482– 

0780, or (202) 482–4052, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 4, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the NSRs of the 

antidumping duty order on fresh garlic 

from the PRC. See Preliminary Results. 

Since the Preliminary Results, the 

following events have occurred. 

Hejia filed surrogate value (SV) 

information for its single–clove garlic on 

May 19, 2009. On May 22, 2009, we 

extended the deadline for all interested 

parties to submit publicly available 

information to value factors of 

production until June 9, 2009. 

Chenglong and Tianheng filed SV 

information on June 9, 2009. On June 

19, 2009, Fresh Garlic Producers 

Association (FGPA) and its individual 

members (Christopher Ranch L.L.C., the 

Garlic Company, Valley Garlic, and 

Vessey and Company, Inc.) (collectively, 

Petitioners), filed factual information 

intended to rebut SV information filed 

by Chenglong and Tianheng. 

On May 27, 2009, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Shandong Zhengyang with a due date of 

June 10, 2009. On June 4, 2009, counsel 

for Zhengyang notified the Department 

that it was withdrawing its 

representation of the company and 

advised the Department to contact 

Zhengyang directly. On June 12, 2009, 

the Department sent a letter to 

Zhengyang stating that we had not 

received its supplemental questionnaire 

response and that we had canceled 

verification. Zhengyang did not respond 

to the Department’s letter. 

On May 27, 2009, the Department sent 

a supplemental questionnaire to Hejia. 

The Department received Hejia’s timely 

response on June 2, 2009. On June 2, 

2009, the Department was notified by 

Juye that it was withdrawing from the 

NSR. 

On June 4, 2009, we extended the 

time limit for the completion of the final 

results of these reviews. See Fresh 

Garlic From the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Time Limit for the 

Final Results of New Shipper Reviews, 

74 FR 26839 (June 4, 2009). 

The Department conducted 

verification of the NSR respondents 

Chenglong, Hejia, and Yuanxiang from 

June 22, 2009 through June 30, 2009. On 

July 30 and 31, 2009, the Department 

issued its verification reports. 

On July 30, 2009, the Department 

preliminarily found Tianheng’s sale to 

be not bona fide. See Memorandum 

From Barbara E. Tillman, Office 

Director, Office 6, Re: Bona Fide Nature 

of the Sale in the Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’): Amended Intent to 

Preliminarily Rescind Jinxiang 

Tianheng Trade Co.’s New Shipper 

Review, July 30, 2009 (Amended 

Memorandum). We continue to find 

Tianheng’s sale to be not bona fide for 

these final results. 

In response to requests filed by 

Petitioners and the NSR respondents, 

the Department extended the due date 

for case briefs until August 17, 2009. 

The Department received timely filed 

case briefs from Petitioners, Hejia, 

Yuanxiang, Chenglong, and Tianheng. 

On August 21, 2009, the Department 

advised Hejia and Tianheng that each 

company’s brief contained new factual 

information and instructed both Hejia 

and Tianheng to re–file their case briefs. 

Hejia and Tianheng complied with the 

Department’s request and re–filed their 

case briefs on August 28, 2009 and 

September 9, 2009, respectively. In 

response to requests filed by Petitioners 

and the NSR respondents, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

rebuttal briefs to August 24, 2009, for 

arguments regarding everything except 

Hejia–related issues, and to August 28, 

2009, for Hejia–specific matters. The 

Department received timely filed 

rebuttal briefs from all interested parties 

on August 24 and 28, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The products covered by this Order 

are all grades of garlic, whole or 

separated into constituent cloves, 

whether or not peeled, fresh, chilled, 

frozen, provisionally preserved, or 

packed in water or other neutral 

substance, but not prepared or 

preserved by the addition of other 

ingredients or heat processing. The 

differences between grades are based on 

color, size, sheathing, and level of 

decay. The scope of this order does not 

include the following: (a) garlic that has 

been mechanically harvested and that is 

primarily, but not exclusively, destined 

for non–fresh use; or (b) garlic that has 

been specially prepared and cultivated 

prior to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed. The 

subject merchandise is used principally 

as a food product and for seasoning. The 

subject garlic is currently classifiable 

under subheadings 0703.20.0010, 

0703.20.0020, 0703.20.0090, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices 50953 

2 In addition, due to the proprietary nature of 

much of the information involved in companyspecific discussions, the Department has found it 

necessary to address certain issues in separate 

memoranda. See Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd (Hejia) (Hejia Final Bona 

Fides Memorandum) and Bona Fide Nature of the 

Sale in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review 

of Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China 

(PRC): Weifang Chenglong Import and Export Co. 

Ltd. (Chenglong) (Chenglong Final Bona Fides 

Memorandum). 

0710.80.7060, 0710.80.9750, 

0711.90.6000, and 2005.90.9700 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

order is dispositive. In order to be 

excluded from the Order, garlic entered 

under the HTSUS subheadings listed 

above that is (1) mechanically harvested 

and primarily, but not exclusively, 

destined for non–fresh use or (2) 

specially prepared and cultivated prior 

to planting and then harvested and 

otherwise prepared for use as seed must 

be accompanied by declarations to CBP 

to that effect. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

Issues raised in the case and rebuttal 

briefs by parties to this proceeding and 

to which we have responded are listed 

in Appendix 1 to this notice and 

addressed in the Memorandum from 

John Anderson, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration Re: 

Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic 

of China: Issues and Decision 

Memorandum for the Final Results of 

the New Shipper Reviews and 

Rescission, In Part, of the New Shipper 

Reviews (Issues and Decision 

Memorandum), September 24, 2009, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice.2

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of the issues raised in these NSRs and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit (CRU), 

Room 1117 of the main Department 

building. In addition, a copy of the 

Issues and Decision Memorandum can 

be accessed directly on our website at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Final Rescission of Zhengyang’s and 

Juye’s New Shipper Reviews 

Subsequent to our Preliminary 

Results, Zhengyang and Juye each 

ceased participation in its respective 

new shipper review. Specifically, 

Zhengyang did not respond to the 

Department’s May 27, 2009 

supplemental questionnaire and Juye 

withdrew from its new shipper review 

on June 4, 2009. By not fully 

participating in its new shipper review, 

each company has failed to establish 

that it qualified for a separate rate. 

To establish whether a company 

operating in a non–market economy 

(NME) is sufficiently independent from 

the Government to be eligible for a 

separate rate, the Department analyzes 

each exporting entity under the test 

established in the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Sparklers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 

amplified by the Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994). Under the separate rates 

criteria, the Department assigns separate 

rates in NME cases only if the 

respondent can demonstrate the absence 

of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over export 

activities. We note that by failing to 

fully participate in their new shipper 

reviews, Zhengyang and Juye did not 

demonstrate that they are free of 

government control and, therefore, are 

not eligible to receive a separate rate, 

and as part of the NME–entity are not 

eligible for a new shipper review. As 

such, the Department rescinds the new 

shipper reviews of Zhengyang and Juye. 

Bona Fides Analyses For Chenglong, 

Tianheng, Yuanxiang and Hejia; and 

Final Rescission of New Shipper 

Reviews with Respect to Chenglong and 

Tianheng 

While conducting a review, 

particularly a review where a company’s 

margin would be based on a single sale, 

the Department examines price, 

quantity, and other circumstances 

associated with the sale under review, 

and must determine if the sale was 

based on normal commercial 

considerations and presents an accurate 

representation of the company’s normal 

business practices. If the Department 

determines that the price was not based 

on normal commercial considerations or 

is atypical of the respondent’s normal 

business practices, including other sales 

of comparable merchandise, the sale 

may be considered non–bona fide. 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department preliminarily found that 

Chenglong’s, Hejia’s, and Yuanxiang’s 

single POR sales were made on a bona 

fide basis. However, as a result of our 

analyses of information found during 

the verification of these companies, as 

well as comments made by interested 

parties, the Department has determined 

that Chenglong’s POR transaction was 

not a bona fide sale. Finally, the 

Department continues to find 

Yuanxiang’s and Hejia’s sales to be bona 

fide for these final results. 

Chenglong: In the Preliminary Results, 

the Department noted that certain 

information on the record called into 

question the bona fides of Chenglong’s 

sale and that we would continue to 

examine all aspects of Chenglong’s POR 

sale. See Preliminary Results at 20455. 

After conducting verification of 

Chenglong and reviewing interested 

parties’ briefs, the Department has 

determined that Chenglong’s sale was 

not a bona fide transaction. See the 

Chenglong Final Bona Fides 

Memorandum for a more detailed 

discussion of the Department’s 

determination as well as the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

rescinding this NSR with respect to 

Chenglong. 

Tianheng: On July 30, 2009, the 

Department preliminarily found 

Tianheng’s sale to be not bona fide. See 

Amended Memorandum. As noted in 

the ‘‘Background’’ section, both 

Petitioners and Tianheng submitted 

briefs and rebuttal briefs regarding the 

bona fides of Tianheng’s single sale. 

Based on our analysis of arguments 

made by the parties, the Department 

continues to find Tianheng’s sale to be 

not bona fide. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. Therefore, 

we are rescinding the NSR with respect 

to Tianheng for these final results. 

Yuanxiang: In the Preliminary 

Results, the Department preliminarily 

concluded that the single sale made by 

Yuanxiang was a bona fide commercial 

transaction. Petitioners and Yuanxiang 

have submitted arguments as to whether 

the Department should rescind 

Yuanxiang’s NSR in these final results. 

See the Yuanxiang Final Bona Fides 

Memorandum for a more detailed 

discussion of the Department’s 

determination as well as the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4. 

Based on the totality of the 

circumstances as discussed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum addressing 

Yuanxiang’s bona fides issues, for these 

final results, the Department continues 

to find that Yuanxiang’s sale was bona 

fide. See id. 

Hejia: In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department noted that certain 

information on the record called into 

question the bona fides of Hejia’s POR 

sale and that we would continue to 

examine all aspects of Hejia’s sale. See 

Preliminary Results at 20455. After 

conducting verification of Hejia and 

reviewing interested parties’ briefs, the 

Department has determined that Hejia’s 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
50954 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices 

sale was a bona fide transaction. See the 

Hejia Final Bona Fides Memorandum 

for a more detailed discussion of the 

Department’s determination as well as 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. Based on the totality of the 

circumstances as discussed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum addressing 

Hejia’s bona fides issues, for these final 

results, the Department continues to 

find that Hejia’s sale was bona fide. See 

id. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of these reviews, and 

comments received from the interested 

parties, we have made changes to the 

financial ratios used to value overhead 

expenses, selling expenses, general 

expenses, and profits for the 

respondents. In these final results, for 

Yuanxiang, we are calculating surrogate 

financial ratios using a simple average 

of financial data from four Indian 

processors of tea, coffee, and rice. Using 

an average of these four companies’ data 

allows us to calculate financial ratios 

that better reflect the broader experience 

of the surrogate industry. See Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 

and Final Surrogate Values 

Memorandum. Also, based on our 

findings at verification, the Department 

is adjusting Yuanxiang’s factors 

regarding packing for these final results. 

See Yuanxiang Verification Report at 3. 

The Department has also made changes 

to the valuation of Hejia’s single–clove 

garlic input. The specific changes, 

which includes business proprietary 

information, are addressed in the 

Memorandum from Nicholas 

Czajkowski, Case Analyst, Re: New 

Shipper Review of Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Analysis for 

the Final Results of Jinxiang Hejia Co., 

Ltd. (Hejia). 

FINAL RESULTS OF NEW SHIPPER 

REVIEWS 

As a result of our reviews, we 

determine that the following margins 

exist for the periods November 1, 2007 

through April 30, 2008 and November 1, 

2007 through June 9, 2008: 

FRESH GARLIC FROM THE PRC 2007– 

2008 NEW SHIPPER REVIEWS

Exported and Produced by 

Chengwu County Yuanxiang Industry & Commerce, Ltd. .......... 115.29 

Exported and Produced by 

Jinxiang Hejia Co., Ltd. ............. 15.37 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to these 

proceedings within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Assessment Rates 

Consistent with the final results of the 

13th administrative review (AR) and 

NSRs of Fresh Garlic from the PRC, we 

will direct CBP to assess importer– 

specific assessment rates based on the 

resulting per–unit (i.e., per kilogram) 

amount on each entry of the subject 

merchandise during the POR. See Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 13th Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 29174, 29177 

(June 19, 2009) (13th AR & NSRs of 

Fresh Garlic from the PRC). Therefore, 

the Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

this review. For assessment purposes, 

we calculated importer–specific 

assessment rates for fresh garlic from the 

PRC. Specifically, we divided the total 

dumping margins for each importer by 

the total quantity of subject 

merchandise sold to that importer 

during the POR to calculate a per–unit 

assessment amount. We will direct CBP 

to assess importer–specific assessment 

rates based on the resulting per–unit 

(i.e., per kilogram) amount on each 

entry of the subject merchandise during 

the POR if any importer–specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

Consistent with the final results of the 

13th AR & NSRs of Fresh Garlic from 

the PRC, we will collect a per kilogram 

cash–deposit amount which will be the 

per–unit equivalent of the company– 

specific dumping margin published in 

the final results of these reviews. The 

following cash deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

final results of these reviews for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results, as 

provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 

(1) for subject merchandise produced 

and exported by Yuanxiang the cash 

deposit rate will be the per–unit rate 

determined in the final results of the 

new shipper review; (2) for subject 

merchandise exported by Yuanxiang but 

not produced by Yuanxiang, the cash 

deposit rate continues to be the per–unit 

PRC–wide rate; (3) for subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

Hejia the cash deposit rate will be the 

per–unit rate determined in the final 

results of the new shipper review; (4) for 

subject merchandise exported by Hejia 

but not produced by Hejia, the cash 

deposit rate continues to be the per–unit 

PRC–wide rate; and (5) for subject 

merchandise produced or exported by 

Tianheng, Zhengyang, Chenglong, and 

Juye, the cash deposit rates continues to 

be the per–unit PRC–wide rate. These 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

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. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (APO) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

These new shipper reviews and notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of 

the Act and 19 CFR and 351.214. 

Dated: September 24, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

Comment 1: Whether Hejia’s Sale is 

Bona Fide 

Comment 2: Whether Chenglong’s Sale 

is Bona Fide 

Comment 3: Whether Tianheng’s Sale is 

Bona Fide 

Comment 4: Whether Yuanxiang’s Sale 

is Bona Fide 

Comment 5: Surrogate Value of Single– 

Clove Garlic 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Notices 50955 

Comment 6: Calculation of Yield Loss 

Factor 

Comment 7: Financial Ratios 

Comment 8: Whether to Calculate 

Separate Financial Ratios for Whole 

Garlic and Peeled Garlic 

[FR Doc. E9–23834 Filed 10–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–855] 

Non–Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results for the Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department is conducting 

an administrative review of this Order, 

covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

of June 1, 2007, - May 31, 2008. The 

Department preliminarily found that 

Itochu Corporation and its wholly– 

owned subsidiaries, Yitian Juice 

(Shaanxi) Co., Ltd. and Laiyang Yitian 

Juice Co., Ltd., (collectively known as 

‘‘Itochu’’) did not sell the subject 

merchandise at less than normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) and thus assigned a zero margin 

for the POR. See Non–Frozen Apple 

Juice Concentrate from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

for the Administrative Review, 74 FR 

31238 (June 30, 2009) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). Based upon our analysis of 

comments received, the Department 

made no changes to the margin 

calculations in the final results. 

Therefore, we will instruct the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on entries 

of subject merchandise during the POR 

for which the importer–specific 

assessment rates are above de minimis. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 2, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexis Polovina, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Ave, NW, 

Washington DC 20230; telephone (202) 

482–3927. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

CASE HISTORY 

On June 5, 2000, the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published in 

the Federal Register the antidumping 

duty order on certain non–frozen apple 

juice concentrate from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See Notice 

of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Non– 

Frozen Apple Juice Concentrate from 

the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 

35606 (June 5, 2000) (‘‘Order’’). On June 

30, 2009, the Department published in 

the Federal Register the Preliminary 

Results of this administrative review. 

On July 17, 2009, Itochu filed comments 

regarding the Department’s Preliminary 

Results. On July 22, 2009, The 

Department subsequently rejected these 

comments as they contained an 

untimely submission of new factual 

information. See Memorandum to the 

File, from Alexis Polovina, Case 

Analyst, Office 9, through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, 

regarding ‘‘Administrative Review of 

Apple Juice Concentrate from the 

People’s Republic of China: Rejection of 

New Information’’ dated July 22, 2009 

(‘‘Rejection of New Information’’). As 

the deadline to submit case briefs was 

July 30, 2009, the Department allowed 

Itochu to resubmit their case brief. 

Itochu submitted a revised case brief on 

July 30, 2009. No other party filed 

comments and no party requested a 

public hearing. 

SCOPE OF THE ORDER 

The product covered by this order is 

certain non–frozen apple juice 

concentrate. Apple juice concentrate is 

defined as all non–frozen concentrated 

apple juice with a brix scale of 40 or 

greater, whether or not containing 

added sugar or other sweetening matter, 

and whether or not fortified with 

vitamins or minerals. Excluded from the 

scope of this order are: frozen 

concentrated apple juice; non–frozen 

concentrated apple juice that has been 

fermented; and non–frozen apple juice 

to which spirits have been added. 

The merchandise subject to this order 

is classified in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States 

(‘‘HTSUS’’) at subheadings 

2106.90.52.00, and 2009.70.00.20 before 

January 1, 2002, and 2009.79.00.20 after 

January 1, 2002. Although the HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, the 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

ANALYSIS OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 

All issues raised in the comments by 

Itochu are addressed in the concurrent 

Issues and Decision Memorandum 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memo’’), which is 

hereby adopted by this notice. A list of 

the issues which Itochu raised and to 

which we respond in the Issues and 

Decision Memo is attached to this notice 

as an Appendix. The Issues and 

Decision Memo is a public document 

and is on file in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce 

Building, Room 1117, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. 

The paper copy and the electronic 

version of the memorandum are 

identical in content. 

FINAL RESULTS OF THE REVIEW 

The Department has determined that 

the final dumping margin for the POR 

is: 

NON–FROZEN APPLE JUICE

CONCENTRATE FROM THE PRC 

Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

Itochu Corporation ........ 0.00 

ASSESSMENT RATES 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and the CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries on an ad valorem 

basis. The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer–specific (or customer) duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of dumping margins 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same 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, i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent. 

CASH–DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of subject merchandise from Itochu 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided for by 

section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’):(1) For 

subject merchandise exported by Itochu, 

no deposit will be required; (2) for 

companies previously found to be 

entitled to a separate rate in prior 

segments of the proceeding, and for 

which no review has been requested, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the rate established in the most recent 

review of that company; (3) for all other 

PRC exporters, the cash deposit rate will 

be 51.74 percent, the PRC country–wide 

ad–valorem rate; and (4) for non–PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise from 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES