Certain Orange Juice From Brazil

Investigation No. 731-TA-1089 (Final)(Remand)

Publication 3930 June 2007

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Daniel R. Pearson, Chairman

Shara L. Aranoff, Vice Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun

Charlotte R. Lane

Irving A. Williamson

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Staff assigned

Debra Baker, Investigator

Alfred Dennis, Industry Analyst

James Fetzer, Economist

David Goldfine, Attorney

Gabriel Ellenberger, Research Assistant

Diane Mazur, Supervisory Investigator

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

www.usitc.gov

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil 

Investigation No. 731-TA-1089 (Final)(Remand)

Publication 3930 June 2007
 
 1

 Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Shara L. Aranoff made affirmative

determinations; Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Daniel R.

Pearson made negative determinations. Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC

Publication 3838, March 2006, p. 1.

 2 Chairman Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun and Irving A. Williamson dissenting.

In February 2006, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determined

that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of certain orange juice

from Brazil that were found by the Department of Commerce to be sold at less than fair value (“LTFV”).1

Respondent Tropicana Products, Inc. appealed the Commission’s determination to the U.S. Court of

International Trade. On April 12, 2007 the CIT remanded the case to the Commission and instructed the

Commission to render a determination within seventy-five (75) days.

On remand, the Commission again determines that an industry in the United States is materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of certain orange juice from Brazil sold at

less than fair value.2

CONTENTS

Page

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

INFORMATION IN THE REMAND PROCEEDING

Background and court order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

The Commission’s compliance methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Further analysis of grower coverage and U.S. processors’ inventory supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Data addressing the Commission’s Bratsk analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Pricing information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

The global industry and market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Apparent consumption in selected countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-20

Global trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Nonsubject production in Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-26

The industries in nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-27

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Excerpts, Tropicana Products, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 07-55, CIT 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Data on U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption of FCOJM and NFCOJ . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Data submitted by foreign producers in nonsubject countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be

published and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by

asterisks.

 1

 Tropicana Products, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 07-55 (Ct. Int’l Trade April 12, 2007) (“Slip Op.”). In the

original determination, three Commissioners reached an affirmative determination, finding present material injury

(then-Chairman Koplan and Commissioners Lane and Aranoff), and three reached a negative determination (thenVice Chairman Okun and Commissioners Hillman and Pearson). The confidential version of the Commission

majority’s Views is referred to as “Original Views,” and the Separate and Dissenting Views of then-Vice Chairman

Okun and Commissioners Hillman and Pearson are referred to as “Dissenting Views.” The public versions of the

Original and Dissenting Views are published in USITC Pub. 3838.

 2 Commissioner Dean A. Pinkert was not a member of the Commission at the time of the original determination. 

He makes his determination in this remand proceeding de novo, by weighing all of the information from the original

proceeding as well as the additional information collected in this remand. 

 3 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun do not join these views as they found, and continue to find that, a

domestic industry is neither materially injured nor threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from

Brazil. In their original determinations Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun found that while the volume of

and increase in subject imports was significant on an absolute basis, they also found that such volume was necessary

to complement and supplement U.S. production. Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun further found that

subject imports did not depress or suppress U.S. prices to a significant degree. Chairman Pearson and Commissioner

Okun therefore concluded that the domestic industry was not materially injured by reason of such imports. See

Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman, and Commissioner

Daniel R. Pearson, Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC Pub. 3838 (March

2006). 

 4 Commissioner Irving A. Williamson was not a member of the Commission at the time of the original

determination. He made his determination in this remand proceeding de novo, by weighing all the information from

the original proceeding as well as the additional information collected in this remand. He adopts sections I and II of

the Original Views regarding domestic like product, domestic industry, and related parties. On the issues of material

injury and threat of injury, he adopts the original Dissenting Views of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun,

Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman, and Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson. Because he reached a negative

determination, he does not find it necessary to address the Court’s remand instructions.

 5 In these remand proceedings, three Commissioners have reached affirmative determinations (Vice Chairman

Aranoff and Commissioners Lane and Pinkert), and three Commissioners have reached negative determinations

(Chairman Pearson and Commissioners Okun and Williamson). If the voting Commissioners “are evenly divided as

to whether the determination should be affirmative or negative, the Commission shall be deemed to have made an

affirmative determination.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(11).

 6 See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC Pub. 3838 (March 2006).

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

On April 12, 2007, the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT” or “the Court”) remanded the

Commission’s affirmative determination in Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089

(Final), USITC Pub. 3838 (March 2006).1

 Upon consideration of the Court’s remand instructions and the

information in the record, as supplemented on remand, we again determine2

 that an industry in the United

States is materially injured by reason of imports of certain orange juice from Brazil (“certain orange

juice”) that the Department of Commerce has found are sold in the United States at less than fair value

(“LTFV”).3 4 5

I. Background

On March 21, 2006, the Commission found that an industry in the United States was materially

injured by reason of LTFV imports of certain orange juice from Brazil.6

 Respondent Tropicana Products,

Inc., an importer and domestic producer, appealed the Commission’s determination. On April 12, 2007,

the CIT remanded the determination to the Commission for re-examination and further explanation of

certain issues. In particular, the Court directed the Commission to address (1) issues relating to the
 7

 Slip Op. at 21, 38-40, and 40-42. 

 8 72 Fed. Reg. 25778 (May 7, 2007). As it has in prior investigations in response to the Bratsk decision, the

Commission issued questionnaires to non-subject producers of certain orange juice because it had not sought

capacity, production and pricing data from non-subject producers in the original investigation. Subsequently,

Respondents submitted a letter requesting that the Commission seek additional information from the importers

concerning the Bratsk issue. In contrast to the decision to collect data from non-subject producers, the Commission

declined to seek information from the importers, because the record already contained importer and purchaser

responses to the questionnaires sent during the original investigation. The Commission concluded that these

questionnaires had asked importers to provide such information relevant to a Bratsk inquiry as was within their

direct knowledge and there was no reason to repeat the inquiry. 

 9 In particular, based on our consideration of the record as a whole in light of the Court’s remand instructions, we

have revisited some of the statements in the Original Views regarding the relationship between subject imports and

demand. As discussed below, we have clarified these findings in response to the remand. 

 10 To the extent the dissenting Commissioners have reached different findings, we note that we have examined

the record in its totality and given consideration to the arguments raised by the parties, but have come to different

conclusions than the dissenting Commissioners. It is well recognized that different Commissioners can reasonably

make different findings and reach different conclusions and that the possibility of drawing two inconsistent

conclusions does not prevent the affirmative determination from being supported by substantial evidence. See Trent

Tube Division, Crucible Materials Corp. v. Avesta Sandvik Tube AB, 975 F.2d 807, 814 (Fed. Cir. 1992);

Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. United States, 750 F.2d 927 (Fed. Cir. 1984). 

 11 Slip Op. at 31. 

2

shortfall in domestic production during the last year of the period of investigation; (2) opposition to the

petition by the majority of processors; and (3) the factors set forth in Bratsk Aluminium Smelter v. United

States, 444 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2006). On several other issues raised in litigation, the Court upheld the

Commission’s findings “in isolation,” but noted that the Commission might wish to reexamine them when

reviewing the record as a whole. These included issues relating to ultra-low pulp orange juice (“ULPOJ”)

imports, the alleged need for subject imports for blending and duty drawback, and the number of grower

questionnaire responses.7

The Commission published a Federal Register notice in May 2007 reopening the record for the

limited purpose of collecting information pertaining to its Bratsk analysis and soliciting written comments

pertaining to the issues that were the subject of the CIT’s remand.8

 Persons who were interested parties to

the original investigation and who were parties to the appeal were permitted to file comments, but were

not allowed to submit any new factual information. On May 31, 2007, Petitioner Florida Citrus Mutual

and Respondents Tropicana, Louis Dreyfus Citrus, Inc., Fischer S/A Agroindustria, and the Coca-Cola

Company filed comments pertaining to the Commission’s remand determination.

Based on our consideration of all of the information in the record, as supplemented on remand,

and of the arguments raised by the parties in the original and remand proceedings, we determine that an

industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of subject imports of certain orange juice

from Brazil. Subject to the Views expressed herein,9

 we adopt and incorporate in their entirety the

Commission’s Original Views.10 

II. Consideration of the Shortfall in the Supply of Domestic Round Oranges

The Court directed the Commission to examine “all the relevant issues relating to the impact of

the shortfall in the domestic production of round oranges on the domestic industry, including, but not

limited to, the levels of residual demand, the inverse correlation between inventory levels of subject

imports and domestic production, and the need of the domestic industry to maintain high inventories.”11

In addition to the volume-related aspects of these issues, the Court directed the Commission to revisit or
 12 Id. at 25. 

 13 As further discussed below, Louis Dreyfus defined residual demand as “the difference between the domestic

consumption and juice available” and defined “juice available” as “the sum of domestic production for that year and

the change in domestic inventory levels, whether positive or negative.” Slip Op. at 25. 

 14 Id. at 26.

 15 Original Views at 17-18. 

 16 Id. at 20 (“Finally, Respondents argue that subject imports are at most a residual source of supply in the U.S.

market to cover domestic production shortfalls, especially following the 2004 Florida hurricanes. The record does

show that Brazilian subject imports tend to rise in years when Florida production falls and vice-versa. In our view,

however, this simple comparison of import and production trends masks important changes in the supply/demand

balance in the U.S. market over the total period examined . . . . [I]nventories of both domestic and Brazilian bulk

product are significant supply factors. . . . [T]he record indicates that the amount of Brazilian subject imports held in

U.S. inventory increased during the period examined, thereby exceeding the volume of imports necessary to counter

domestic production shortfalls.”). 

 17 In this investigation, the parties do not dispute that apparent consumption is indicative of demand. See, e.g.,

Petitioners’ Comments at 5-6; Louis Drefyus’s Comments at 4-5. As the Commission explained in its Original

Views, domestic demand for certain orange juice is primarily a function of demand for downstream products using

FCOJM and NFC, predominantly retail orange juice. Original Views at 16, citing CR at II-4; PR at II-3. 

3

further explain certain aspects of its determinations regarding price effects and impact that may have been

affected by the Commission’s inventory-related findings. We address each of the issues in turn below. 

A. Residual Demand and the Domestic Industry’s Maintenance of Inventories

To a large extent, the Court’s concerns revolved around the Commission’s discussion in the

Original Views regarding “residual demand.” The Court particularly took issue with the Commission’s

finding that subject imports increasingly exceeded residual demand. As the Court pointed out, the

Commission “never actually determined the level of residual demand.”12 Apparently relying on the

definition of residual demand proffered by Respondent Louis Dreyfus,13 the Court concluded that “[w]hen

so defined, the record shows that subject imports did not increasingly exceed residual demand but

fluctuated from year to year” and that “in the last year of the POI, the level of subject imports did not

exceed the residual demand, but was actually insufficient to meet the domestic demand.”14 

The Respondents’ arguments to the Court about residual demand appear to rest on confusion

regarding both our definition of that concept and how it must be applied given the facts of this case,

confusion that may have been fostered by our incomplete statement in the Original Views that “[t]he

parties agree, and the record confirms, that imports of certain orange juice are necessary to meet domestic

demand.”15 Subsequently in the Original Views, we attempted to clarify this statement by noting that we

must take inventories into consideration when analyzing the total available supply of orange juice.16 We

failed, however, to fully articulate the effect of domestic inventories on residual demand and, thus, the

basis for our determination that subject imports were not necessary to meet such demand.

As a general matter, we define residual demand as the difference between demand, on the one

hand, and production plus available inventories, on the other. Our use of the term “available” to modify

“inventories” is meant to indicate that the facts of the particular case will dictate whether all, or some

portion of, the stated inventories might be brought to bear on demand within the period under

consideration. To the extent that it is not possible for stated inventories to be brought to bear on demand

within the period, they are not incorporated into our calculation of residual demand. We note that the

Commission generally uses apparent consumption as the measure of demand for a product in the U.S.

market.17 
 18 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i) and (iii)(I) (emphasis supplied).

 19 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). 

 20 Original Views at 14-17.

 21 Id. at 15.

 22 Id. 

 23 Hearing Tr. at 29.

 24 Id. at 258 (“Over the POI, inventories were steadily and let me emphasize intentionally built, extending long

term trends. Industry participants acknowledged the need to create substantially greater storage capacity during the

past decade to protect American consumers from shortages.”) (Brinner). 

 25 The market for subject merchandise may experience substantial uncertainty regarding the existence of residual

demand in subsequent years, and imports may serve to hedge that uncertainty by providing an alternative source of

supply. Hedging such uncertainty is not equivalent to being necessary to meet demand. 

4

Our definition of residual demand is consistent with the statutory directive for analyzing subject

import volume in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i) and (iii)(I). The statute directs the Commission to consider

the volume of imports “either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption” and to consider

“market share,” among various other factors, as relevant to the impact of the subject imports on the

domestic industry.18 In addition to market share and the enumerated statutory factors (including

inventories), the statute directs the Commission to evaluate any other “relevant factors which have a

bearing on the state of the industry in the United States” and to do so “within the context of the . . .

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”19 We note that we examine

conditions of competition, including supply and demand, in virtually every investigation. 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(C)(i) and (iii)(I). 

In the Original Views, the Commission discussed the relevant conditions of competition,

including the role of inventories, in the supply and demand chain of the domestic orange juice market.20

Between October and January, freshly harvested round oranges become available for processing into

certain orange juice. Orange juice processors face significant year-to-year fluctuations in the supply of

their primary input, round oranges.21 Fluctuations in the orange supply result from both weather

conditions (e.g., freezes, hurricanes, and droughts) and other factors, including citrus diseases (e.g., Citrus

Canker and Citrus Greening).22 Processors convert harvested oranges into FCOJM or NFCOJ and hold

the juice in temperature-controlled storage tanks until needed by customers. Even stored this way, orange

juice is perishable. The shelf life of NFCOJ is no more than 3 years, while the shelf life of FCOJM is

longer.23

Supply of certain orange juice is a function of inventories as well as crop size. Due to a variety of

factors, including shelf life and storage capacity, domestic processors can supply the market for certain

orange juice by drawing down their total available inventory, even in years of diminished production. 

When harvesting of round oranges concludes for a crop year, processors use inventories to supply the

market until the next harvest begins. The record also indicates that, due to the inherent volatility in the

domestic supply of round oranges, domestic producers of certain orange juice prefer to maintain some

additional inventory as an insurance policy in order to reassure downstream customers that there will be

an adequate supply of orange juice in the event of a poor orange crop harvest in the future.24

The Commission considered the difference between U.S. apparent consumption and the juice

available from domestic sources. In light of the high level of inventories maintained by the industry and

the purposes for which the inventories were maintained, the Commission found that the domestic supply

in any given crop year included both domestic production and inventories. If domestic supplies,

including inventories, had fallen short of domestic consumption in a crop year, the Commission would

have treated that shortfall as residual demand.25 
 26 Slip Op. at 25. 

 27 Id. 

 28 Id. 

 29 Hearing Tr. at 217. In response to questioning, Ms. Warlick stated:

COMMISSIONER PEARSON: Well, I’m glad that you raised inventories because that was getting to my

next question. Is there such a thing as a normal level of carryover inventory for the U.S. orange juice

market?

MS. WARLICK: It depends on what time of year. 

COMMISSIONER PEARSON: Let’s look at the end of the crop year.

MS. WARLICK: Yes, October 1st. We’ve said you really need to have 12 weeks to get you to January. 

They prefer a comfort level of somewhere between 16 and 20.

 30 Hearing Tr. at 52:

MS. WARLICK: . . . We submit that at the beginning of the season, say October 1, U.S.

processors need at least 12 weeks of supply to take them to January when the Hamlins are

processed, and they would prefer a comfort level of between 16 and 20 weeks. However, 

beyond 20 weeks inventories are a costly liability.

5

As described in the Court’s opinion, Louis Dreyfus has argued that “residual demand can be

defined as the difference between the domestic consumption and juice available.”26 It defined “juice

available” as “the sum of domestic production for that year and the change in domestic inventory levels,

whether positive or negative.”27 Most significantly, to calculate total domestic juice available, it included

in the juice available only a small portion of total available U.S. inventory, namely the amount actually

withdrawn from or added to inventory in a given year. We find that this analysis understates by a

significant amount the volume of domestic juice that is available in any given crop year to satisfy

domestic consumption. By understating the amount of inventory that is available to satisfy domestic

consumption, the analysis overstates the amount of subject imports necessary to meet the residual

demand. 

Louis Dreyfus ignores, and instead labels as unavailable, the major portion of total inventories

from which U.S. producers can draw in order to meet demand. There is no credible support in the record

for this artificial restriction on the ability of domestic producers to draw down large amounts of inventory

that are readily available for sale. Thus, we reject the contention that the juice available to domestic

processors from inventory must be restricted to the “change in domestic inventory levels, whether

positive or negative,” between crop years.28

Louis Dreyfus apparently presumes that all stock in inventory at the end of the crop year,

regardless of how large, is deliberately left untouched as a “cushion.” The record does not bear this out. 

In fact, the evidence indicates that, beyond a certain level, specifically twenty weeks worth of inventory,

domestic producers view inventories as a liability. At the hearing, the domestic industry’s economist, Ms.

Warlick, on behalf of all the Petitioners (including three processors), testified that the industry needs to

have only 12 weeks available at the start of the crop year to carry the processors from October to January,

when freshly harvested Hamlin oranges become available for processing, although the industry “prefers”

a comfort level of between 16 and 20 weeks.29 Beyond 20 weeks, however, the industry views

inventories as “a costly liability.”30 In other words, while the evidence in the record suggests that

domestic processors need 12 weeks and prefer to maintain 16 to 20 weeks of carryover stocks at the end

of any given crop year, it does not follow that domestic processors need or prefer these amounts to be

held in inventory constantly throughout the year, and Ms. Warlick did not testify to that effect. 

Furthermore, there is nothing in the record to indicate that domestic producers cannot use all of their

inventory to meet demand. As Ms. Warlick testified at the hearing, however, due to differences in the
 31 Tropicana Comments at 7.

 32 Hearing Tr. at 52, 217. 

 33 Tropicana Comments at 6-7, citing testimony of Mssrs. Freeman, Brinner, and Zellner. We give no evidentiary

weight to argumentative statements of counsel that Tropicana has also cited and note in addition that those

statements fail to support the contention that more than 12 weeks of inventory are ever necessary.

 34 To the extent the Court questioned whether the domestic industry was importing certain orange juice from

Brazil to maintain a certain level of inventories (slip op. at 28), we note that the testimony of Respondent Louis

Dreyfus’ own witness belies that theory. Mr. Randall Freeman, the CEO of Louis Dreyfus, testified that “the

inventory change from one year to another is entirely domestic. The delta is entirely domestic inventory change. 

The foreign component, as a percentage of it, is more or less constant because the blending requirements dictate that

you have that, so the change in inventory is entirely a function of what’s going on in the domestic production land. 

It’s not a function of the imports.” Hearing Tr. at 366. 

 35 CR/PR at Table I-3A.

 36 CR/PR at Table IV-6. In the original determination, the Commission observed that “[b]ased on USDA data,

during the period examined, the size of the U.S. inventory of certain orange juice represented approximately one-half

of domestic production in any given crop year.” Original Determination at 15. As noted above, however, U.S.

beginning stocks of certain orange juice were far lower and varied substantially in previous crop years both in

absolute terms and as a percentage of domestic production (i.e., crop years 1989/1990 through crop year 2000/2001).

CR/PR at Table IV-6

6

harvest months for domestic orange varieties, the industry usually targets a minimum level of inventory as

carryover stocks for the following crop year. 

We find Ms. Warlick’s testimony to be credible and indicative of the practice of the domestic

producers. None of the Respondents questions the veracity of this testimony, although the Respondents 

mischaracterize her statements or point to other evidence that is not relevant to this particular point. 

Tropicana misstates Ms. Warlick’s testimony by referring in its remand comments to “20 weeks optimum

supply claimed by petitioners.”31 As discussed above, Ms. Warlick testified that the domestic industry

generally “need[s] at least 12 weeks of supply to take them to January” and would “prefer a comfort level

of somewhere between 16 and 20 weeks,” not that 20 weeks of supply in inventory was required or

“optimum” either at the end of the crop year or any other time during the year.32 Tropicana references

hearing testimony by several of Respondents’ witnesses, but these witnesses merely testified about the

processors’ preference to maintain unspecified levels of inventories and that historically inventories

tended to be higher in years with bumper crops.33 This testimony does not rebut Ms. Warlick’s

quantitative assessment of the processors’ target levels for carryover stocks that were “needed” versus a

“comfort level.”34

The inventory data reflected in the questionnaire responses indicates that beginning-of-period

inventory levels increased from 14.4 weeks in crop year 2001/02 to 17.7 weeks in 2002/03, then dropped

slightly to 16.2 weeks in 2003/04 before rising to 24.9 weeks at the beginning of the last crop year

(2004/05) covered by the POI. 35 These data show that the inventory levels, prior to the surge in subject

 imports in crop year 2004/05, corroborate Ms. Warlick’s testimony that a typical and preferred

beginning-of-crop-year inventory level would be below 20 weeks. 

We note that U.S. beginning stocks of certain orange juice were lower and varied substantially in

previous crop years, which undermines Respondents’ claim regarding a “historical average” level of

inventory.36 For example, U.S. producers’ beginning stocks were 232.8 million gallons SSE in crop year

1989/90 (11 weeks of domestic consumption), 225.4 million gallons SSE in crop year 1990/91 (10

weeks), 157.7 million gallons SSE in crop year 1991/92 (7 weeks), 170.1 million gallons SSE in crop

year 1992/93 (7 weeks), 249.4 million gallons SSE in crop year 1993/94 (10 weeks), 360.4 million

gallons SSE in crop year 1994/95 (15 weeks), 434.5 million gallons SSE in crop year 1995/96 (16

weeks), 417.0 million gallons SSE in crop year 1996/97 (16 weeks), 563.8 million gallons SSE in crop
 37 CR/PR at Table IV-6 (calculated weeks of domestic consumption).

 38 The end of one crop year is followed by the beginning of the next crop year. Accordingly, end-of-period

inventory in one crop year is available as carryover stocks in beginning-of-period inventory in the following crop

year. CR/PR at Table III-15. 

 39 For purposes of these calculations, the weekly consumption used to derive the targeted beginning inventory

level is based on the actual domestic consumption in the indicated crop year. 

 40 CR/PR at Tables IV-6 & I-3A. 

 41 We note that U.S. producers’ exports of certain orange juice were relatively low during the period examined,

falling from 181.2 million gallons SSE in crop year 2001/02 to 112.5 million gallons SSE in crop year 2004/05. 

CR/PR at Table IV-6. Even taking into account these exports of certain orange juice, we find that subject imports

were not needed to satisfy residual demand in crop years 2001/02, 2002/03, and 2003/04 and that subject imports

entered the U.S. market at a higher level than was necessary to satisfy domestic consumption in crop year 2004/05. 

7

year 1997/98 (18 weeks), 678.7 million gallons SSE in crop year 1998/1999 (22 weeks), 533.8 million

gallons SSE in crop year 1999/2000 (17 weeks), and 645.5 million gallons SSE in crop years 2000/01 (22

weeks).37 Thus, the USDA data do not corroborate Respondents’ assertions concerning historic

inventory levels.

In determining whether there was any shortfall in domestic supply, we took into account that the

industry needs 12 weeks of supply to carry over into the beginning of any given crop year. The chart

below is based on the assessment that 12 weeks of beginning-of-period inventory (“B-O-P inventory”)38

is the amount needed.39 Thus, any amount in excess of 12 weeks of inventory must be considered, along

with current production levels, as available to meet domestic demand. The data demonstrate that in every

year of the period examined the available domestic production plus inventories exceeded domestic

consumption; therefore, there was not any residual demand that needed to be filled from non-domestic

supply sources.

Crop Year Domestic

Production

B-O-P

Inventories

Assume 12

Weeks

Inventory Not

Available for

Sale

B-O-P

Inventory

Available for

Sale

Domestic

Production

Plus Available

Inventory

Domestic

Consumption

Residual

Demand

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE)

2001/02 1,432,162 698,464 333,683 364,781 1,796,943 1,445,959 -350,984

2002/03 1,246,761 692,163 328,260 363,903 1,610,664 1,422,460 -188,204

2003/04 1,471,334 704,509 330,651 373,858 1,845,192 1,432,822 -412,370

2004/05 1,006,642 842,139 345,642 496,497 1,503,139 1,497,781 -5,358

In crop year 2004/05, U.S. processors had 842.1 million gallons SSE in inventory at the

beginning of the year.40 As demonstrated above, the domestic industry had more than adequate inventory

to satisfy domestic consumption during the final crop year (i.e., crop year 2004/05) of the period

examined and more than adequate carryover stocks for the following crop year (i.e., crop year 2005/06). 

Because the domestic industry had adequate combined domestic production and inventory to

satisfy domestic consumption in each year of the period examined, there was no residual demand that

needed to be met by subject imports at any time during the period.41 Although domestic supply was less

plentiful in the final crop year following the hurricanes (i.e., crop year 2004/05), the domestic industry

had more than adequate inventory in that year to make up for the production shortfall and to satisfy
 42 CR/PR at Table IV-6. Although we find that no more than 12 weeks of carryover stocks were needed by the

industry, the table below shows that even using a 20-week level for beginning inventory levels there would still have

been sufficient domestic supply to meet domestic consumption in two of the four crop years reviewed. Moreover,

even in the two years in which there was a positive residual demand, the level of subject imports exceeded the

 amount that would have been needed to meet the residual demand. We present this chart for illustrative purposes

only, because we find it likely that, absent the influx of unfairly traded imports, domestic producers would certainly

have drawn down inventories below a 20-week level, or even a 12-week level, in a year when domestic production

was seriously reduced due to hurricanes.

Crop Year Domestic

Production

B-O-P

Inventories

Assume 20

Weeks of

Inventory

Not

Available for

Sale

B-O-P

Inventory

Available for

Sale

Domestic

Production

Plus

Available

Inventory

Domestic

Consumptio

n

Residual

Demand

Imports from

Brazil

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE)

2001/02 1,432,162 698,464 556,138 142,326 1,574,488 1,445,959 -128,529 109,728

2002/03 1,246,761 692,163 547,100 145,063 1,391,824 1,422,460 30,636 227,280

2003/04 1,471,334 704,509 551,085 153,424 1,624,758 1,432,822 -191,936 154,203

2004/05 1,006,642 842,139 576,070 266,069 1,272,711 1,497,781 225,070 231,711

 43 Slip Op. at 27 (citing Original Views at 15). 

 44 Id. 

 45 Slip Op. at 31. 

 46 Louis Dreyfus Comments at 4-7. 

 47 To the extent there is an inverse correlation between domestic production and subject imports, we note that the

magnitude of any such correlation is questionable on this record. Subject import volumes were virtually identical in

(continued...)

8

domestic consumption while still carrying forward an ending inventory of 12 weeks into the 2005/06 crop

year.42

B. Inverse Correlation Between Inventory Levels of Subject Imports and Domestic

Production

As to the relationship between subject import inventory levels and domestic production, the Court

opined that “the level of subject imports held in domestic inventory was inversely correlated to the level

of production of the domestic like product – rising when production levels fell and vice-versa.”43 The

Court reasoned that this supposed inverse correlation between the level of subject merchandise in

domestic inventory and the level of domestic production was likely explained by the need of domestic

producers to “‘maintain relatively large bulk juice inventories’ to ensure their supply of certain orange

juice during fluctuations in domestic production.”44 Accordingly, the Court directed the Commission on

remand to examine all the relevant issues relating to the impact of the shortfall in the domestic production

of round oranges on the domestic industry, including “the inverse correlation between inventory levels of

subject imports and domestic production.”45 

Respondents argue that Brazilian subject imports are noninjurious because they are “pulled” into

the U.S. market in order to offset a domestic supply shortfall.46 As we recognized in the original

determination, subject imports generally increased when U.S. production of certain orange juice fell and

vice versa.47 This simple observation, however, does not demonstrate that increases in subject imports are
 47 (...continued)

two crop years when domestic production levels varied substantially. In crop year 2002/03, subject imports totaled

227.3 million gallons SSE, while domestic production totaled 203 million gallons SSE. By contrast, in crop year

2004/05, subject imports totaled 231.7 million gallons SSE, while domestic production totaled 149.6 million gallons

SSE. CR/PR at Table C-3. 

 48 CR/PR at Table IV-6.

 49 CR/PR at Table C-3.

 50 CR/PR at Table VII-4.

 51 Because the Brazilian home market is small with very little domestic demand for orange juice in Brazil,

Brazilian producers of certain orange juice are export-oriented and must export even more to other markets

(including the United States) in years when the Brazilian orange crop and Brazilian orange juice production are at

high levels. CR/PR at Table VII-4; CR at VII-3 to VII-4; PR at VII-4.

 52 Domestic production during the 2004/05 crop year was 32 percent less than production in the previous year. 

Moreover, the 2004/05 production was 19 percent less than the next lowest production year of the period of review

and 27 percent lower than the average of the three previous years’ production. CR/PR at Table IV-6.

9

solely the result of declines in domestic production. There are other factors in play. For example, these

increases in subject imports generally coincided with especially large Brazilian orange crops and high

levels of Brazilian production of certain orange juice. Subject imports were at their highest levels of the

period in crop years 2002/03 and 2004/05.48 Likewise, end-of-period inventories of subject FCOJM were

at their highest levels in crop years 2002/03 and 2004/05.49 Brazilian production of certain orange juice

also reached its highest levels in crop years 2002/03 and 2004/05, rising to *** pounds solids and ***

pounds solids, respectively.50 We find this positive correlation between subject imports and subject

merchandise inventory and Brazilian production of certain orange juice to be significant, because it

suggests that production levels in Brazil affected the increase in subject imports during the period

examined; it is contrary to the Respondents’ claim that low-priced subject imports were merely “pulled”

into the market to offset a domestic supply shortfall.51

Considering the positive relationship between levels of subject imports and Brazilian production

and the availability of domestic juice to satisfy domestic consumption needs, we do not find that the

inverse relationship between domestic production and subject imports demonstrates that subject imports

at the levels that actually occurred during the period of investigation were needed to meet domestic

demand. The central issue is whether the domestic industry could have made up for a domestic

production shortfall by selling available inventories of certain orange juice. Even in the aftermath of the

2004 Florida hurricanes, during the worst crop year of the period of investigation, when domestic

production was well below that of any of the previous years reviewed,52 domestic processors retained the

ability to meet demand by drawing down total available inventory while still maintaining slightly in

excess of 12 weeks of inventory to take them into the next crop year. Indeed, beginning-of-period

domestic inventories were at a record high at the beginning of crop year 2004/05. Nevertheless, the

volume of subject imports entering the U.S. market during that crop year (i.e., crop year 2004/05), as in

every other year of the POI, was higher than necessary to meet residual demand and limited the ability of

domestic producers to sell in the domestic market their available supply, inclusive of inventories. We

find that the increase in the volume of low-priced subject imports in excess of U.S. apparent consumption

growth, in the absence of any residual demand that needed to be met by subject imports, is significant. 

III. The Relationship Between Supply/Demand Factors and Price Effects 

The Court directed the Commission on remand to revisit three aspects of its determination

regarding price effects related to the Commission’s findings with respect to the increase in the level of
 53 Slip Op. at 29. 

 54 Id.

 55 Id. 

 56 Id. at 30 n.27. 

 57 Demand for certain orange juice is price inelastic. See CR/PR at II-20; PR at II-15.

 58 Original Views at 23, 28 (finding that “the domestic industry’s ratio of COGS to net sales has steadily

increased throughout the period examined” and that “the increase in net sales unit values in interim 2005 was only

$0.14 per pound while COGS increased by $0.16 per pound over the same period”); CR/PR at Table VI-9

(COGS/net sales increased from 90 percent in 2002 to 92.9 percent in 2003 and to 96.3 percent in 2004, and

increased from 87.7 percent in interim 2004 to 93.5 percent in interim 2005).

 59 Slip Op. at 29.

 60 See Original Views at 27-28.

 61 CR/PR at Table C-3. 

 62 Id. 

10

subject imports held in domestic inventory.53 First, the Court instructed the Commission “to [examine]

how demand factors, such as the limited increase in domestic consumption of certain orange juice during

the POI, may have prevented the domestic industry from raising prices.”54 Second, the Court instructed

the Commission to “also consider how the level of subject imports held in inventory, consisting of at most

8.7% of the domestic inventories during the POI, and less than 5% in two of the years of the POI,

contributed significantly, rather than minimally, to the suppression of domestic prices.”55 Finally, in a

footnote, the Court directed the Commission to consider the “dissenting Commissioners’ conclusion that

monthly subject import volumes fluctuated significantly in a manner that did not correlate with

fluctuations in prices.”56 

After considering each of the issues raised by the Court, we again find that subject imports

suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree. Given the increase in U.S. apparent consumption of

certain orange juice over the period of investigation and the low demand elasticity,57 domestic producers

should have been able to pass on higher production costs through higher prices. They were prevented

from doing so by the significant increase in subject import volume, which was beyond any increase

explicable by non-price factors or unmet domestic demand, and significant subject import underselling

margins. 

The Commission’s finding in the Original Views that the domestic industry experienced “a

classic cost-price squeeze” toward the end of the period of investigation as the ratio of cost of goods sold

to net sales increased steadily throughout the POI is not in dispute.58 The Court, however, has directed

the Commission to consider on remand the extent to which the domestic industry’s inability to recoup

higher costs through higher prices resulted from “demand factors, such as the limited increase in domestic

consumption of certain orange juice during the POI . . . .”59 As in our original determination, we find that

demand trends did not significantly contribute to the price suppression experienced by domestic

producers for two reasons. 

First, U.S. apparent consumption of certain orange juice increased toward the end of the period of

investigation, as the popularity of low-carbohydrate diets waned.60 U.S. apparent consumption reached its

highest level of the period examined in the final crop year of the period, increasing from 1.44 billion

gallons SSE in crop year 2003/04 to 1.50 billion gallons SSE in crop year 2004/05.61 Apparent domestic

consumption for certain orange juice increased by 3.5 percent over the period of investigation, from 1.45

billion gallons SSE in crop year 2001/02 to 1.50 billion gallons SSE in crop year 2004/05.62 All else

being equal, increasing apparent consumption toward the end of the period should have made it easier for

domestic producers to pass on higher costs to their customers through higher prices. 
 63 See Original Views at 23-24.

 64 CR/PR at Table III-5; CR at I-4 to I-5, II-20; PR at I-4, II-20.

 65 See Original Views at 24 (finding that “[b]etween 2003 and 2004, the cost-price squeeze resulted in a 7.8

percentage point decline in the domestic industry’s operating margin, which was more accelerated than the 1.8

percentage point drop in the domestic industry’s operating margins between 2002 and 2003, when the domestic

industry also experienced a cost-price squeeze”).

 66 CR/PR at Table C-3. Subject import volume increased by 77.5 million gallons SSE, or 50.3 percent, between

crop year 2003/2004 and crop year 2004/2005, outstripping the 64 million gallons SSE, or 4.5 percent, increase in

U.S. apparent consumption over the period. Id.

 67 Original Views at 22. 

 68 Slip Op. at 29. 

 69 See e.g., Negev Phosphates, Ltd. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 12 CIT 1074, 1084, 699 F.Supp. 938, 947 (1988)

(when commodity product is price sensitive, underselling of even small volumes can cause price suppression). 

 70 Original Views at 24.

11

Second, domestic producers should have been capable of increasing their prices without

increasing retail orange juice prices and consequently reducing downstream orange juice demand,

because the gap between wholesale prices of certain orange juice and retail orange juice prices increased

over the period of investigation.63 This widening gap should have provided retailers with the financial

latitude to maintain retail orange juice prices even as domestic producers recovered their costs through

higher certain orange juice prices.

Additional factors that should have made it easier for the domestic industry to raise prices and

break out of its cost-price squeeze were the domestic industry’s limited capacity, the limited number of

competitors, and the inelasticity of certain orange juice demand.64 The relatively high concentration of

the domestic industry and the unresponsiveness of demand to changes in price for certain orange juice

should have afforded the domestic industry a degree of market power. 

Despite strengthening apparent consumption, the growing gap between wholesale and retail

prices, and other factors that should have facilitated price hikes, the cost-price squeeze affecting the

domestic industry intensified toward the end of the period examined,65 as the volume of low-priced

subject imports increased more than the increase in U.S. apparent consumption. Subject import volume

increased by 122.0 million gallons SSE, or 111.2 percent, over the period of investigation, outstripping

the 50 million gallon SSE, or 3.5 percent, increase in U.S. apparent consumption over the period.66

Moreover, underselling by subject imports was significant and pervasive, with subject imports

underselling the domestic like product in 41 of 48 quarterly comparisons at margins averaging 8.3

percent.67 The increase in certain orange juice supply relative to U.S. apparent consumption, coupled

with significant subject import underselling, placed pressure on prices for certain orange juice. We find

that the increase in the volume of low-priced subject imports in excess of U.S. apparent consumption

growth, in the absence of any residual demand that needed to be met by subject imports, contributed

significantly to the domestic industry’s inability to raise prices commensurate with increasing costs.

 The Court also instructed the Commission to “consider how the level of subject imports held in

inventory, consisting of at most 8.7% of the domestic inventories during the POI, and less than 5% in two

of the years of the POI, contributed significantly, rather than minimally, to the suppression of domestic

prices.”68 We note at the outset that even a relatively modest increase in the volume of subject

merchandise would likely have significant price-suppressing effects in a commodity market like that for

certain orange juice.69 In our original determination, we found that the increase in subject import volume

beyond what was necessary to meet U.S. demand served to almost double subject import inventories

between crop year 2003/2004 and crop year 2004/2005.70 Specifically, subject import end-of-period

inventories increased by 24.7 million gallons SSE, or 92.9 percent, from 26.6 million gallons SSE in
 71 CR/PR at Tables C-3 and IV-5.

 72 Subject import end-of-period inventories were converted from 24.7 million gallons SSE to 25.4 million pounds

solids using a conversion factor of 1.029 and dividing by domestic production in crop year 2004/2005 of 965.4

million pounds solids. See CR/PR at Table III-6.

 73 Original Views at 30 n.27. 

 74 Slip. Op. at 30. 

12

2003/2004 (3.2 percent of U.S. ending stocks) to 51.3 million gallons SSE in 2004/2005 (8.7 percent of

U.S. ending stocks).71 This significant inventory of low-priced subject imports accumulated over the last

year of the period examined, which was equal to 2.6 percent of domestic production that year,72 would

have dampened demand for the domestic like product just as domestic industry costs were increasing. 

We find that the timing and magnitude of the increase in subject import inventories, coupled with the

price sensitivity of the certain orange juice market, contributed significantly to the domestic industry’s

inability to recoup higher costs through higher prices. We also note that our analysis of price effects is

not limited to the effects of the carryover inventories. Rather, in finding significant price effects, we have

also taken into account that total subject imports from Brazil, whether sold or inventoried, had pricesuppressing effects by inhibiting domestic producers from raising prices sufficiently to cover costs. 

Finally, in a footnote, the Court directed the Commission to consider evidence, and in particular a

chart submitted by Petitioners, showing that “monthly subject import volumes fluctuated significantly in a

manner that did not correlate with fluctuations in prices.”73 We acknowledge the absence of any inverse

correlation between trends in subject import volume and trends in prices for the domestic like product,

which increased towards the end of the period of investigation even as subject import volume increased. 

As explained above, however, we do not find that subject imports depressed domestic prices but that

subject imports significantly suppressed domestic prices, preventing the domestic industry from

recouping higher costs through higher prices to a significant degree. Although domestic prices increased

toward the end of the period of investigation, they did not increase enough to compensate for higher

domestic industry costs, and the ratio of COGS to net sales reached its highest level of the period

examined in crop year 2004/2005. A chart merely exhibiting trends in subject import volume and

domestic prices over the period of investigation does not capture the extent to which domestic prices were

suppressed or the factors that contributed to price suppression. Therefore, we do not find the referenced

chart relevant to our pricing conclusions. 

IV. Subject Imports Had a Significant Adverse Impact on the Domestic Industry

Although the Court did not expressly remand our analysis of impact, the Court did highlight

evidence pertaining to impact that it apparently viewed as inconsistent with the Commission’s analysis. 

Specifically, the Court noted that the financial performance of several domestic processors appeared to

have been influenced by the hurricanes in the last year of the period of investigation: 

 The performance of the different domestic processors varied depending on

whether the processor was affected by the hurricanes in central Florida in 2004. 

For instance, processors which were not affected by the hurricanes, such as

Southern Gardens and Sunkist, were not negatively affected in CY 2004/05,

while processors hit hardest by the hurricanes were negatively affected.74

The Court also opined that the domestic industry’s market share and capacity utilization had been 

influenced by the orange crop: 
 75 Id. at 30-31. 

 76 Original Views at 25-28. 

 77 We recognize here, as we did in the Original Views, that some of the declining trends experienced by domestic

processors and growers, including trends in production, capacity utilization, and employment, in part reflect the

effects of hurricanes and the related spread of citrus diseases. See Original Views at 28.

 78 The statute defines the domestic industry as “the producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those

producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic

production of that product.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

13

The Commission’s statement that the domestic industry’s share of the

domestic market declined over the POI does not sufficiently explain the

situation here. The Commission failed to mention that the domestic

industry’s share of the domestic market is directly correlated to domestic

production levels of the like product, including round oranges. It is not

surprising that the domestic industry’s share of the domestic market

declined when there was a tremendous fall in domestic production in CY

2004/05 because of orange shortages. This would have occurred even if

the level of subject imports had remained the same. Likewise, it is not

surprising that the domestic industry experienced a decline in domestic

capacity utilization from the first year of the POI to the last year of the

POI given the dramatic decline in domestic production.75

After considering the issues raised by the Court, we again find that subject imports are having a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

As explained in our Original Views and supplemental discussion above, the subject import

volume and the increase in subject import volume were significant in absolute terms and relative to U.S.

apparent consumption and production, particularly given that subject imports were unnecessary to satisfy

any residual demand in the U.S. market. The domestic industry was in a position throughout the period

examined to satisfy U.S. apparent consumption using domestic production and available inventory. Even

after the downturn in domestic production following the 2004 Florida hurricanes, domestic processors

had record (and more than adequate) inventory on hand to satisfy domestic consumption, and domestic

market share need not have declined as a result of any orange shortfall. Nevertheless, subject imports

entered the U.S. market in excessive quantities, displacing domestic shipments and capturing market

share from the domestic industry.

As explained in our Original Views and supplemental discussion above, this significant volume

of subject imports significantly undersold the domestic like product throughout the period of

investigation. Subject imports also significantly suppressed domestic prices by preventing the domestic

industry from raising domestic prices sufficiently to cover increasing costs, even after the hurricanes in

crop year 2004/2005. 

We find that these significant volume and price effects are having a significant adverse impact on

the domestic industry. By most measures, the domestic industry’s condition and financial indicators

worsened over the period examined,76 even accepting that the domestic industry’s capacity utilization rate

in crop year 2004/2005 was depressed in part by the poor orange crop.77 Although the performance of

certain domestic producers may correlate with the hurricanes in the last year of the period examined, we

have considered the impact of subject imports on the domestic industry “as a whole,” as statutorily

required,78 and have not confined our analysis to adverse effects manifested only during the final year of

the POI. 

As explained in the Original Views, we find that the hurricanes did not sever the causal nexus

between subject imports and the material injury to the domestic industry, given significant subject import
 79 Original Views at 28.

 80 CR/PR at Table IV-6. 

 81 Slip Op. at 33-34. 

 82 Original Views at 28 n.197. 

 83 Id. 

 84 Slip Op. at 33-34.

14

underselling, the price-sensitivity of the certain orange juice market, and the cost-price squeeze that the

domestic industry suffered as subject imports suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree.79 The

domestic industry’s performance was deteriorating before the hurricanes in crop year 2002/2003, when

subject import volume was 227.3 million gallons SSE, and its performance continued to decline after the

hurricanes in crop year 2004/05, when subject import volume was at a similarly high level (231.7 million

gallons SSE).80 

We therefore conclude that the domestic industry producing certain orange juice is materially

injured by reason of subject imports of certain orange juice from Brazil that are sold in the United States

at less than fair value. 

V. Consideration of the Opposition to the Petition by a Majority of Processors

The Court also remanded for further explanation of why the Commission gave little weight to the

lack of support for the petition by the majority of processors, notwithstanding the Commission’s reliance

on their data in addressing impact.81 In the original determination, the Commission took into account

certain processors’ opposition to the petition, stating: “[w]e recognize that U.S. processors accounting for

*** percent of U.S. production of certain orange juice in crop year 2004/05 oppose the petition in this

final phase investigation.”82 The Commission also explained that “[w]hile the degree of support by

members of the domestic industry for the petition may be a factor considered by the Commission, such a

factor is not dispositive.”83 While acknowledging that the opposition to the petition by the majority of

domestic processors did not preclude an affirmative determination, the Court directed the Commission on

remand to explain its rationale for reaching an affirmative determination in the face of industry

opposition.84

Where, as here, the evidence shows that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of

the subject imports, the matter of whether particular producers or a particular subset of producers support

the petition does not prevent the Commission from making an affirmative determination. In our view, the

more important and objective consideration is whether the shipment, financial, market share, and

inventory data demonstrate that the domestic industry as a whole suffered material injury by reason of

subject imports from Brazil. The level of industry support for the petition is one factor among many, and

we find that the record as a whole demonstrates material injury by reason of subject imports from Brazil. 

 We do not know – and will not speculate on – the motives of certain domestic processors for

opposing the petition. A domestic producer’s decision whether to support the petition is frequently based

on a subjective judgment regarding legal strategy. Producer opposition to the petition, in and of itself, is

not evidence of lack of injury to a particular producer, let alone lack of injury to the domestic industry as

a whole, or evidence of a lack of causation. Our review of the evidence shows that the domestic industry

is materially injured. As we explained in the Original Views, the domestic industry’s financial indicators

worsened throughout the period examined, and the industry’s condition deteriorated by most other
 85 Original Views at 25-28. 

 86 CR/PR at Table III-5.

 87 The other *** domestic producers opposing the petition do not have ties to subject Brazilian producers and

accounted for *** percent of domestic production in crop year 2004/05. CR/PR at Table III-5.

 88 The related party inquiry, which concerns whether a particular firm is benefitting from importation, differs

from the inquiry as to why a particular firm may oppose a petition. Indeed, the domestic industry’s support or

opposition to the petition is a subjective factor; there are many conceivable reasons why a particular domestic

producer might support or oppose the petition regardless of whether it derives any tangible, financial benefit from

the subject imports. 

 89 These *** domestic processors accounted for *** percent of the production of all processors that opposed the

petition. CR/PR at Table III-5. 

 90 CR/PR at Table III-1.

 91 CR at III-3 to III-5; PR at III-3 to III-4. With respect to the growers, we note that the coverage rate discussed

by Tropicana and noted by the Court (slip op. at 19) is actually lower than the rate if based upon production of

oranges used for processing. If coverage is based specifically on processed oranges, which we find to be more

meaningful than calculating the percentage of total U.S. oranges produced (both for eating and processing), the U.S.

grower financial data discussed in the Original Views accounted for 20 percent of total U.S. processed oranges and

22 percent of Florida processed oranges during the 2004/05 crop year. Memorandum INV-EE-055 (May 25, 2007)

at I-4 and Table I-1.

15

measures, including market share, domestic shipments, number of production workers employed by

processors, hours worked, and wages.85 

Out of the total, *** domestic processors, accounting for *** percent of domestic production in

the final crop year of the period examined, supported the petition.86 *** producers, accounting for ***

percent of domestic production, opposed the petition. These *** include *** large processors, accounting

for approximately *** percent of domestic production in the final year of the period examined, that have

corporate ties to companies with financial interests in the production or importation of the Brazilian

subject product.87 Notwithstanding our determination that each of these related domestic producers’

interest in domestic production was sufficient to include it in the industry, we attach significance to these

*** processors’ relationships with Brazilian subject producers and subject merchandise, which likely

influenced their position in this investigation.88 Therefore, we give less weight to their opposition to the

petition under the particular circumstances present here.89

*** of the 36 responding growers, whose financial interests are directly tied to those of domestic

processors, supported the petition, and *** opposed it.90 Especially in light of the highly fragmented

nature of the grower segment of the industry and the proportionally greater burden placed on a small

entity such as a grower in replying to the questionnaires, we do not penalize the growers for the

imbalance between the percentage of growers supporting the petition and the percentage of processors

supporting the petition. This is especially so given the timing of this investigation in the aftermath of the

2004 and 2005 hurricanes, which caused significant damage to the Florida groves, disrupting growers’

operations and making it more burdensome for them to complete questionnaires.91

VI. Totality of the Evidence

In addition to ordering the Commission to address the four specific issues discussed above, the

Court directed the Commission to “consider the totality of the evidence anew.” Slip Op. at 43. Pursuant

to these instructions, we have, as we always do in any remand, considered the entire record in light of any
 92 As discussed supra, on issues relating to ULPOJ imports, the need for subject imports for blending and duty

drawback, and the level of grower questionnaire responses, the court upheld the Commission’s findings “in

isolation,” but noted that the Commission may wish to reexamine them when reviewing the record as a whole. We

have reviewed all of the evidence in the record and find that the record continues to support both our findings with

respect to these issues and our affirmative determination. 

 93 Slip Op. at 34-40.

 94 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 1375.

 95 Id.

 96 For a full discussion of our views on the applicability of Bratsk, see our Views in the Remand Determination

for Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Final) (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3910 (March 2007). 

For a full discussion of Vice Chairman Aranoff’s views on the applicability of Bratsk, see the Views of the

Commission in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Trinidad and Tobago, Inv. No. 731-TA-961 (Final)

(Remand), USITC Pub. 3903 (January 2007). For a full discussion of Chairman Pearson’s views on the applicability

of Bratsk, see his Separate and Additional Views in Silicon Metal from Russia. For a full discussion of

Commissioner Okun’s views of the applicability of Bratsk, see her Separate and Dissenting Views in Certain Lined

Paper School Supplies from China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443, 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final),

USITC Pub. 3884 (Sept. 2006).

 97 See Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, at

851-852 (1994). 

 98 H.R. Rep. No. 317, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. at 47 (“Any such requirement has the undesirable result of making

relief more difficult to obtain for those industries facing difficulties from a variety of sources, precisely those

industries that are most vulnerable to subsidized or dumped imports.”).

16

new findings we have made. Having considered the record as a whole, we reaffirm our findings on all

other issues.92

VII. Application of the Bratsk Replacement/Benefit Test

In its remand instructions, the CIT directed the Commission to conduct the examination required

by the Federal Circuit’s decision in Bratsk.

93 Bratsk requires that, having reached an affirmative

determination by application of the statutorily mandated factors, we must apply an additional analysis

which can, in some circumstances, negate an affirmative determination. The Federal Circuit directed the

Commission to undertake an “additional causation inquiry” if certain triggering factors are met, i.e., 

“whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product, and price competitive nonsubject imports are a significant factor in the market.”94 The additional inquiry required by Bratsk, which

we refer to as the Bratsk replacement/benefit test, is “whether non-subject imports would have replaced

the subject imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.”95

We respectfully disagree with the decision in Bratsk that the statute requires any analysis beyond

that already included in our discussion of volume, price, and impact above.96 The statutory scheme 

contemplates that an industry may be facing difficulties from a variety of sources, including non-subject

imports and other factors, but the existence of injury caused by other factors does not compel a negative

determination if the subject imports themselves are making more than a minimal or tangential

contribution to material injury.97 The legislative history further clarifies that the dumped imports need not

be the “principal” cause of material injury and that the “by reason of” standard does not contemplate that

injury from dumped imports be weighed against injury from other factors, such as non-subject imports,

which may be contributing to overall injury to an industry.98 Thus, once the Commission establishes the

existence of a causal link between subject imports and material injury, the existence of other concurrent

causes is legally irrelevant to its determination.
 99 Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. v. United States, 322 F.3d 1369, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

 100 SAA at 883-85, 889-90.

 101 Wooden Bedroom Furniture from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1058 (Final), USITC Pub. 3742 (Dec. 2004) at 27,

n. 222.

 102 See Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Pub. 3910 (Mar. 2007) at 3-8

(articulating in detail the Commission’s longstanding interpretation of the “by reason of” causation standard).

 103 Respondents themselves have observed in this remand investigation that the Bratsk directive to examine

capacity and production by producers in non-subject countries shows a misunderstanding of the statutory scheme,

given that such producers have no incentive to provide this information to the Commission. See Respondents’

request that the Commission seek additional data (May 4, 2007). 

 104 Chairman Pearson and Commissioner Okun discern two possible interpretations of the Bratsk opinion, which

differ substantially. The so-called “replacement/benefit test” is noted above. The second one is that Bratsk is an

elaboration of the causation analysis prescribed by Gerald Metals. Under this interpretation, the Bratsk decision

stands to remind the Commission of its obligation under Gerald Metals that the Commission may not satisfy the “by

reason of” causation requirement by showing that subject imports contributed only “minimally or tangentially to the

material harm.” In other words, the Bratsk Court’s relatively short discussion of the underlying determination may

not have established a new and rigid replacement/benefit test. Rather, the Court may have discussed the triggering

factors as a reminder that the Commission, before it makes an affirmative determination, must satisfy itself that it has

not attributed material injury to factors other than subject imports. See Separate and Additional Views of Chairman

Daniel R. Pearson and Commissioner Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning Bratsk Aluminum v. United States in,

Sodium Hexametaphosphate from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-1110 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3912 (April 2007). This

analysis is included in the Commission’s affirmative causation analysis.

 105 Bratsk, 444 F.3d at 11. 

17

Similarly, the statute does not permit the Commission to reach a negative determination based on

the likely ineffectiveness of an order. Indeed, the purpose of the statute is not to bar or eliminate subject

imports from the U.S. market or award subject import market share to U.S. producers, but instead to

“level [] competitive conditions” by imposing a duty on subject imports and thus enabling the domestic

industry to compete against fairly traded imports.99 The statutory scheme in fact contemplates that subject

imports may remain in the U.S. market after an order is imposed and even that the industry afterwards

may continue to suffer material injury.100 As the Commission has previously explained,

[N]othing in the statute or case law requires (or allows) us to consider the likely

effectiveness of a dumping order in making our injury determination. The

possibility that non-subject imports will increase in the future after an

antidumping order is imposed is ... not relevant to our analysis of whether

subject imports are currently materially injuring the industry.101

The Commission has a well established approach to addressing causation.102 We apply the Bratsk

replacement/benefit test to our analysis, however, because the CIT has directed us to do so in light of

Bratsk, notwithstanding that, in our considered view, this test is not required by, or consistent with, the

statute.103 104

As noted above, the Bratsk analysis “is triggered whenever the antidumping investigation is

centered on a commodity product, and price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the

market.”105 If both Bratsk triggering factors are satisfied, we apply the “replacement/benefit” test required

under Bratsk to determine whether non-subject imports could replace subject imports with no benefit to

the domestic industry. We find that one of the Bratsk triggers is not satisfied in this investigation, and

therefore it is unnecessary for us to take the further step of determining whether non-subject imports

would have replaced subject imports with no beneficial effects for the domestic industry.
 106 Views at 24 n.166.

 107 CR at II-9; PR at II-6. See Original Determination at 21-22.

 108 Slip Op. at 37; CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 109 Slip Op. at 37.

 110 See, e,g, CR/PR at Table IV-5; Memorandum INV-EE-055 at I-31 and Table I-10; Hearing Tr. at 43-44 (Mr.

Behr); 50 (Ms. Warlick).

 111 See, e.g., Polyester Staple Fiber from China, Inv. 731-TA-1104, USITC Pub. 3922 (June 2007) at 40-41.

 112 Memorandum INV-EE-055 Views of the Commission 1

Views of the Commission 1

at Table I-6.

 113 Original Views at 27-28; CR/PR at Table IV-5.

18

A. The First Triggering Factor: Whether Certain Orange Juice Is a Commodity

Product

We find that certain orange juice qualifies as a commodity product based upon Bratsk’s definition

of “commodity product” as “meaning that it is generally interchangeable regardless of its source.” No

party argues otherwise. Indeed, FCOJM futures are traded on the New York Board of Trade as

commodities.106 Further, the record indicates that purchasers generally view certain orange juice as

interchangeable regardless of the source and that it is a price competitive product.107 

B. The Second Triggering Factor: Whether Price Competitive Non-subject Imports

Are a Significant Factor in the Market

We find that price competitive non-subject imports are not a significant factor in the U.S. market

based on the relatively low market share held by such imports. As the CIT noted in this case, the nonsubject imports comprised 40.8 percent of total U.S. imports of certain orange juice in crop year 2001/02,

20.8 percent in crop year 2002/03, 29.4 percent in crop year 2003/04, and 34.2 in crop year 2004/05.108

While, as the Court suggested, these percentages may not be so small as to render the nonsubject imports

“an indisputably insignificant factor in the market,”109 the record indicates that domestic and Brazilian

product are by far the most significant sources of certain orange juice in the United States.110 Consistent

with the approach we find most useful for assessing the significance of non-subject imports in the U.S.

market,111 we have examined the market share of such imports and find they do not rise to the level

necessary to trigger a Bratsk analysis. In particular, the share of U.S. apparent consumption comprised of

non-subject imports was 5.2 percent in crop year 2001/02, 4.2 percent in crop year 2002/03, 4.5 percent in

crop year 2003/04, and 8.0 percent in crop year 2004/05, while the share comprised of subject imports

was 7.6 percent in crop year 2001/02, 15.9 percent in crop year 2002/03, 10.7 percent in crop year

2003/04, and 15.4 percent in crop year 2004/05.112 Thus, even at their highest level of 8.0 percent of

apparent consumption, non-subject imports’ market share was only at the level held by subject imports

before the subject imports’ surge late in the POI. Moreover, as discussed in the Original Views, although

non-subject imports’ share of the U.S. market increased overall by 2.8 percentage points during the period

examined, subject imports gained far more market share at the expense of the domestic industry than did

nonsubject imports.113 

 The three largest non-subject sources of certain orange juice in the United States accounted,

respectively, for 15.6 percent of U.S. imports and 3.7 percent of U.S. apparent consumption in crop year
 114 Memorandum INV-EE-055 at Tables, I-5, I-6, & I-13.

 115 Id. at I-37 and Tables I-5 & I-6.

 116 Id. at Table I-13 and Tables I-5 & I-6.

 117 We note that Brazilian exports dwarfed orange juice exports from all countries, accounting for approximately

90 percent of all worldwide orange juice exports throughout the POI. See Memorandum INV-EE-055 at Tables I-5

& I-13. 

 118 Id. at Table I-14 and CR/PR at Table VII-4.

19

2004/05 (Mexico);114 8.6 percent of U.S. imports and 2.0 percent of U.S. apparent consumption in crop

year 2004/05 (Belize);115 and 8.4 percent of U.S. imports and 2.0 percent of U.S. apparent consumption in

crop year 2004/05 (Costa Rica).116 Brazilian juice, in comparison, consistently made up the substantial

majority of U.S. imports.117

There were *** imports of non-subject Brazilian certain orange juice to the United States during

the POI, and therefore there were *** imports, let alone “price competitive” non-subject Brazilian

imports, that played a significant role in the U.S. market. The only non-subject Brazilian producer,

Citrovita, which was subject to an earlier U.S. antidumping duty order imposed during the POI, exported

*** orange juice to the United States *** during the POI. Moreover, although Citrovita projected that it

would import some certain orange juice to the United States in crop years 2005/06 and 2006/07, its

projected U.S. exports were modest, at *** pounds solid and *** pounds solid, respectively, as compared

to the subject Brazilian producers’ projected exports to the United States of *** pounds solid for crop

year 2005/06 and *** pounds solid for crop year 2006/07.118 As such, we find that non-subject Brazilian

imports do not play a significant role in the U.S. market and that application of a Bratsk analysis is

therefore unwarranted with respect to Citrovita. 

In light of the data reflecting the small role of nonsubject imports, we conclude that non-subject

imports are not a significant presence in the U.S. market. Accordingly, we do not find the second

triggering factor identified in Bratsk to be present. It therefore is unnecessary for us to apply the Bratsk

replacement/benefit test. 

VII. Conclusion

For the above-stated reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing certain orange

juice is materially injured by reason of subject imports of certain orange juice from Brazil that are sold in

the United States at less than fair value. 

 1 Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC Publication 3838, March 2006, p. 1. 

The subject product is 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 further manufacturing (“FCOJM”); and (2) pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been

concentrated, referred to as NFC (“Not-From-Concentrate”). Commerce expressly excluded from the scope

reconstituted orange juice and frozen 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 typically at 42 degrees Brix, in a frozen state, packed in retail size containers ready for sale to

consumers. FCOJR is a finished consumer product, and is produced through manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk

manufacturer's product. Ibid., p. 4. The scope of this investigation 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, Coinbra (successor-in-interest to

Frutropic), Cutrale, Fisher, and Montecitrus. Ibid., pp. I-4 and I-5.

Certain orange juice was provided for in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”) in

subheadings 2009.11.00 (frozen orange juice), 2009.12.25 and 2009.12.45 (orange juice, not frozen, of a Brix value

not exceeding 20), and 2009.19.00 (orange juice, other). In the HTS, the volume (i.e., liter or gallon) of FCOJM, is

on a single strength equivalent (“SSE”) basis. The Brix level is a measurement of the sugar content expressed in

percent by weight of solids.

The normal trade relations tariff rate for subheading 2009.12.25 is 4.5 cents/liter, while the rate for the other

three subheadings is 7.85 cents/liter, all applicable to imports from Brazil; this rate was not reduced as a result of the

Uruguay Round of Trade Negotiations. No GSP preference exists. Ibid., p. I-15., n. 11.

 2

 Chairman Stephen Koplan and Commissioners Charlotte R. Lane and Shara L. Aranoff made affirmative

determinations; Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun and Commissioners Jennifer A. Hillman and Daniel R.

Pearson made negative determinations. Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC

Publication 3838, March 2006, p. 1.

 3

 Plaintiff-Intervenors included Louis Dreyfus Citrus, Inc., and Fischer S/A Agroindustria.

 4 Federal Register notices cited in the tabulation are presented in app. A.

I-1

INFORMATION IN THE REMAND PROCEEDING

BACKGROUND AND COURT ORDER

On February 27, 2006, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determined 

that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports from Brazil of certain

orange juice.1 2

 Respondent Tropicana Products, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)3 appealed the Commission’s

determination to the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”). On April 12, 2007 the CIT remanded the

case to the Commission and instructed the Commission to render a determination within 75 days.

Summary information related to this remand proceeding is presented below.4
 5 Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d at 1375. 

 6

 As noted in the Commission’s original determination and as shown in table I-5 of this memorandum, imports of

certain orange juice from Belize, Costa Rica, and Mexico, accounted for 32 of the 34 percent of total U.S. imports of

certain orange juice from nonsubject sources in 2004. Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089

(Final), USITC Publication 3838, March 2006, p. 42.

I-2

Date Action

December 27, 2004 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission1

March 3, 2006 Commission’s final determination published in the Federal Register 

(71 FR 10993)

March 9, 2006 Commerce issued antidumping duty order (71 FR 12183)

May 7, 2007 Commission issues notice and scheduling of remand proceeding (72 FR

25778)2

May 25, 2007 Commission releases new information gathered in the remand proceeding to

the parties

May 31, 2007 Final comments of parties due to the Commission

June 26, 2007 Commission scheduled to transmit its second remand determination to the CIT

 1 Petitioners included Florida Citrus Mutual (a voluntary cooperative organization whose membership consists

of more than 10,400 growers of citrus fruit for processing into certain orange juice and other processed citrus

products, as well as fruit for fresh consumption); A. Duda & Sons, Inc.; Citrus World, Inc.; Peace River Citrus

Products, Inc.; and Southern Garden Citrus Processing Corp. On January 31, 2005, petitioners submitted a letter

to the Commission modifying the petition to remove Peace River as a petitioner.

 2

 Remand instructions from the CIT opinion are presented in app. B. Tropicana Products, Inc. v. United States,

Slip Op. 07-55, CIT 2007, April 12, 2007.

THE COMMISSION’S COMPLIANCE METHODOLOGY

During this remand proceeding, the Commission determined to reopen the record of the original

investigation in order to obtain new information concerning the certain orange juice industries in Belize,

Costa Rica, and Mexico, relevant to the inquiry set out in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

(“CAFC”) decision in Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States (“Bratsk”).5 6

 Accordingly, the

Commission issued foreign producer questionnaires to two firms in Belize, five firms in Costa Rica, and

four firms in Mexico. The Commission also arranged for cables seeking foreign industry information to

be sent to the U.S. embassies in Belize, Costa Rica, and Mexico. In addition, the Commission compiled

available secondary-source data from public sources, including (1) official import statistics of the U.S.

Department of Commerce (“Commerce”), (2) Global Agricultural Information Network (“GAIN”) reports

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), (3) Production, Supply, and Distribution

(“PDS”) Online data of the USDA , and (4) international trade data of the Global Trade Information

Services, Inc. (“Global Trade Atlas”). 

The countries and firms from which the Commission sought information are presented in the

following tabulation:
 7

 Additions and revisions to the staff report are contained in Investigations memoranda INV-DD-014, February 2,

2006; INV-DD-015, February 6, 2006; and INV-DD-016, February 7, 2006.

 8

 The random sample of growers was supplemented to include, as necessary, large orange growers identified

through searches of public sources.

 9 Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC Publication 3838, March 2006, 

p. III-1.

 10 Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC Publication 3838, March 2006, p. VI11.

 11 As noted by the Commission during the original investigation, “(t)here are two economically important types of

oranges: round oranges and specialty oranges. ‘ “Round oranges” ’ include navel, Hamlin, Parson Brown,

Pineapple and Valencia oranges. The bulk of round oranges are processed into certain orange juice with most of the

(continued...)

I-3

Country Firm

Belize Belize Citrus Growers Association

Citrus Products of Belize Limited

Costa Rica TicoFruit

Del Oro S.A.

Dos Pinos

Frutca C.R., S.A.

Suco Citro, S.A.

Mexico Citrofrut S.A. de C.V.

Procimart S.A. de C.V.

Citrotam International, S.P.R. de R.I.

Fruitec

The Commission received responses to its foreign producer questionnaires from three firms: Citrofrut

S.A. de C.V., Mexico, Del Oro S.A., Costa Rica and Procimart S.A. de C.V., Mexico. The Commission

also received a response from the U.S. embassy in Costa Rica.

Information presented in this remand memorandum relates to further analysis of U.S. grower

coverage and U.S. processor inventory supply, as well as new information on production, imports, and

exports by foreign producers/exporters in Belize, Costa Rica, and Mexico. This information is intended

for use in conjunction with the confidential staff report (as revised) issued during the original

investigation, INV-DD-010, dated January 27, 2006.7

 Summary data on the U.S. market are presented in

appendix C.

FURTHER ANALYSIS OF U.S. GROWER COVERAGE AND 

U.S. PROCESSORS’ INVENTORY SUPPLY

As indicated in the staff report during the original investigation, there were approximately 7,000

farms in Florida that grew oranges in 2002. Based on a listing of such growers submitted by petitioners, a

random sample of 400 domestic growers of juice oranges were selected to receive the Commission’s

grower questionnaire during the original investigation.8

 Forty-one growers, or about 10 percent of all

Florida orange growers, provided responses to the questionnaire with varying degrees of useable data.9

The Commission’s final staff report presented the financial results of *** U.S. orange growers and

indicated that the responding growers represented “approximately 12 percent of U.S. production of

oranges.”10 That coverage rate was estimated based on total U.S. oranges produced (i.e., oranges for both 

fresh consumption and processing) during the period of investigation.11 If coverage was based
 11 (...continued)

remainder (mainly navel oranges) sold for fresh eating.” Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089

(Final), USITC Publication 3838, March 2006, p. 10, fn. 65.

I-4

specifically on processed oranges, U.S. grower financial data presented in table VI-15 of the original staff

report accounted for 20 percent of total U.S. processed oranges and 22 percent of Florida processed

oranges during the 2004/05 crop year (table I-1). 

Table I-1

Oranges: U.S. growers’ net sales, total oranges, and ratio of growers’ net sales to total oranges,

crop years 2002/03 to 2004/05 and average 2002/03-2004/05

Item

Crop year Total/average

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2002/03-2004/05

Net sales (1,000 90-pound boxes)

U.S. growers’ questionnaire

responses (*** firms) 33,607 36,883 31,162 101,652

Total oranges (1,000 90-pound boxes)

Total oranges produced:

Florida 203,000 242,000 149,600 594,600

Total U.S. 283,760 267,040 294,620 845,420

Total processed oranges: 

Florida 193,287 232,107 142,217 567,611

Total U.S. 206,000 238,690 155,452 600,142

Ratio of growers’ net sales to total oranges (percent)

Total oranges produced:

Florida 16.6 15.2 20.8 17.1

Total U.S. 11.8 13.8 10.6 12.0

Total processed oranges: 

Florida 17.4 15.9 21.9 17.9

Total U.S. 16.3 15.5 20.0 16.9

Source: Compiled from table III-2 and VI-15, Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final),

USITC Publication 3838, March 2006.

The Court instructed the Commission to consider on remand whether subject imports were needed to

maintain a certain level of overall inventories to deal with shortfalls in domestic production. In its U.S.

extractor/processor and U.S. importer questionnaires in the original investigation, the Commission

requested information as to the reasons a firm imported/purchased certain orange juice. Provided in table

I-2 is information pertinent to this request derived from Commission questionnaires.
I-5

Table I-2

Certain orange juice: Reasons for importing and purchasing orange juice, provided by importers

and processors/extractors, by firm

Firm Comments

Importers

Response to the following question in the importers’ questionnaire (question Part II-5 ): “If your firm

also produces certain orange juice in the United States, please indicate your reasons for importing this

product. If your reasons differ by source, please elaborate.”

* * * * * * *

Processors/ Extractors

Response to the following question in the processors’/extractors’ questionnaire (question Part II-21,

n.1): “Please indicate your reasons for purchasing this product(s). If your reasons differ by product

and/or source, please elaborate.”

* * * * * * *

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Data relating to U.S. processors’ U.S.-produced and import end-of-period inventories, ratios to shipments,

and inventory supply, on a company-by-company basis, are presented in tables I-3 and I-4. Data relating

to U.S. processors’ U.S.-produced and import beginning inventories, ratios to shipments, and inventory

supply, on a company-by-company basis, are presented in tables I-3A and I-4A.
I-6

Table I-3

Certain orange juice: U.S. extractor/processors’ inventories, shipments, ratio of inventories to

shipments, and weeks of supply, by firm, crop year 2001/02-2004/05 

Item

Crop year Crop year Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

FCOJM NFCOJ Certain OJ

End-of-period inventories (1,000 pounds solid equivalent (PSE)1

)

* * * * * * *

Total 289,580 293,214 377,622 266,243 134,161 146,598 162,762 148,938 423,741 439,812 540,384 415,181

Total shipments (1,000 pounds solid equivalent)

* * * * * * *

Total 936,848 668,273 862,554 515,013 519,930 576,974 560,552 595,096 1,456,778 1,245,247 1,423,106 1,110,109

Ratio of end-of-period inventories to total shipments (percent)

* * * * * * *

Total 30.9 43.9 43.8 51.7 25.8 25.4 29.0 25.0 29.1 35.3 38.0 37.4

End-of-period weeks of supply (number of weeks)

* * * * * * *

Total 16.1 22.8 22.8 26.9 13.4 13.2 15.1 13.0 15.1 18.4 19.7 19.4

1

 Pounds solid equivalent (“PSE”) is the extracted orange solids regardless of their form, i.e., FCOJM, other FCOJ, single-strength

orange juice (“SSOJ”), or other form.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table I-4

Certain orange juice: U.S. extractor/processors’ U.S.-produced and import inventories, and ratio

of import inventory to U.S.-produced inventory, by firm, crop years 2001/02-2004/05 

Item

Crop year Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

U.S.-produced Imports from Brazil

End-of-period inventories (1,000 pounds solid equivalent)

* * * * * * *

Total 423,741 439,812 540,384 415,181 34,771 42,868 27,404 52,408

Ratio of import to U.S.-produced end-ofperiod inventories (percent)

U.S. processors’ end-of-period weeks of

supply, including import and U.S.-

produced inventories (number of weeks)

* * * * * * *

Total 8.2 9.7 5.1 12.6 16.4 20.2 20.7 21.9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
I-7

Table I-3A

Certain orange juice: U.S. extractor/processors’ beginning inventories, shipments, ratio of inventories

to shipments, and weeks of supply, crop years 2001/02-2004/05 

Item

Crop year Crop year Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

FCOJM NFCOJ Certain OJ

Beginning inventories1

 (1,000 pounds solid equivalent (PSE)

2

* * * * * * *

Total 275,509 290,249 295,119 370,364 128,085 133,457 148,064 161,747 403,594 423,706 443,183 532,111

Total shipments (1,000 pounds solid equivalent)

* * * * * * *

Total 936,848 668,273 862,554 515,013 519,930 576,974 560,552 595,096 1,456,778 1,245,247 1,423,106 1,110,109

Ratio of beginning inventories to total shipments (percent)

* * * * * * *

Total 29.4 43.4 34.2 71.9 24.6 23.1 26.4 27.2 27.7 34.0 31.1 47.9

Beginning weeks of supply (number of weeks)

* * * * * * *

Total 15.3 22.6 17.8 37.4 12.8 12.0 13.7 14.1 14.4 17.7 16.2 24.9

 1

 Total beginning inventories reported in this table do not reconcile with the end-of-inventories for the prior period as reported in table I-3. 

The difference is attributable to disparities in those data as reported by *** in its U.S. extractor/processor questionnaire response in the

original investigation.

 2

 Pounds solid equivalent (“PSE”) is the extracted orange solids regardless of their form, i.e., FCOJM, other FCOJ, single-strength

orange juice (“SSOJ”), or other form.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table I-4A

Certain orange juice: U.S. extractor/processors’ U.S.-produced and import beginning

inventories, and ratio of import inventory to U.S.-produced inventory, crop years 2001/02-

2004/05 

Item

Crop year Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

U.S.-produced Imports from Brazil

Beginning inventories (1,000 pounds solid equivalent)

* * * * * * *

Total 403,594 423,706 443,183 532,111 52,373 34,771 42,868 27,404

Ratio of import to U.S.-produced beginning 

inventories (percent)

U.S. processors’ beginning weeks of

supply, including import and U.S.-

produced inventories (number of weeks)

* * * * * * *

Total 13.0 8.2 9.7 5.2 16.3 19.1 17.8 26.2

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 12 Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March 2007, p. 2;

citing Bratsk Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 F.3d at 1375. 

 13 In the silicon metal remand, Chairman Pearson noted “consistent with his views in Lined Paper School

Supplies From China, India, and Indonesia, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-442-443 and 731-TA-1095-1097 (Final), USITC Pub.

3884 (Sept. 2006) at 51, that while he agrees with the Commission that the Federal Circuit’s opinion suggests a

replacement/benefit test, he also finds that the Federal Circuit’s opinion could be read, not as requiring a new test,

but rather as a reminder that the Commission, before it makes an affirmative determination, must satisfy itself that it

has not attributed material injury to factors other than subject imports.” Silicon Metal from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA991 (Second Remand), USITC Publication 3910, March 2007, p. 2, fn. 17. Commissioner Okun joined in those

separate and dissenting views in Lined Paper. 

 14 Organic orange juice is classified in the same subheadings as conventional orange juice.

 15 Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC Publication 3838, March 2006, p. 9.

 16 The Commission stated in its original final views that, other than Brazilian nonsubject imports, the primary

sources of nonsubject imports during the period examined included Belize, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, South

Africa, and the Dominican Republic. Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC

Publication 3838, March 2006, p. 16, n.120. 

I-8

DATA ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION’S BRATSK ANALYSIS

As a result of the CAFC’s decision in Bratsk, the Commission is directed to:

undertake an “additional causation inquiry” whenever certain triggering factors are

met: “whenever the antidumping investigation is centered on a commodity product, and

price competitive non-subject imports are a significant factor in the market.” The

additional inquiry required by the Court, which we refer to as the Bratsk

replacement/benefit test, is “whether non-subject imports would have replaced the

subject imports without any beneficial effect on domestic producers.12 13

 

U.S. Imports and Apparent U.S. Consumption

Information presented in this section of the report relates to imports and apparent consumption of

certain orange juice, by source, during the original period of investigation: crop years 2001/02 to

2004/05. Separate data on frozen orange juice in a highly concentrated form for manufacturing (FCOJM)

and pasteurized single-strength orange juice which has not been concentrated (NFCOJ) are presented in

appendix D.14 The Commission determined in the final phase of the original investigation that

conventional FCOJM, conventional NFC, organic FCOJM, and organic NFC are a single domestic like

product coextensive with Commerce’s scope.15

Table I-5 presents a detailed listing of U.S. imports from nonsubject sources which supplements

the information presented in table IV-2 of the staff report in the original investigation. Almost all

nonsubject merchandise in 2004/05 was imported from Mexico, Belize, and Costa Rica.16 U.S. imports

from these three sources accounted for 32.6 percent of total imports while imports of subject merchandise

from Brazil accounted for 65.8 percent and imports from the remaining sources totaled 1.6 percent. The

quantity of certain orange juice imported from Mexico fluctuated from a low of 8.2 million gallons SSE

in 2003/04 to a high of 54.8 million gallons SSE in 2004/05. U.S. imports from Costa Rica fluctuated

between 24.1 million gallons SSE in 2001/02 and 32.0 million gallons SSE in 2003/04. The quantity of

U.S. imports of certain orange juice from Belize increased steadily from 3.8 million gallons SSE in

2001/02 to 30.4 million gallons SSE in 2004/05. Nonsubject shares of U.S. imports of certain 
I-9

Table I-5

Certain orange juice: U.S. imports, by source, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Source

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE1

)

Brazil (subject) 109,728 227,280 154,203 231,711

Mexico 41,358 13,467 8,209 54,822

Belize 3,822 8,123 20,205 30,366

Costa Rica 24,054 28,755 32,020 29,658

Honduras 4,462 1,238 1,669 2,182

Dominican Republic 770 894 817 1,328

South Africa 536 5,737 237 1,006

All others 557 1,375 1,010 1,070

Subtotal, nonsubject 75,559 59,589 64,167 120,432

Total 185,287 286,869 218,370 352,143

Value1

 (1,000 dollars)

Brazil (subject) 99,162 242,259 142,702 232,481

Mexico 43,486 16,591 8,339 53,106

Belize 13,747 11,486 10,602 18,484

Costa Rica 37,960 38,397 30,781 31,411

Honduras 5,526 1,722 1,534 2,591

Dominican Republic 681 836 951 1,349

South Africa 581 5,655 211 889

All others 1,120 1,806 1,229 1,361

Subtotal, nonsubject 103,102 76,494 53,648 109,191

Total 202,265 318,753 196,350 341,672

Unit value (per gallon)

Brazil (subject) $0.90 $1.07 $0.93 $1.00

Mexico 1.05 1.23 1.02 0.97

Belize 3.60 1.41 0.52 0.61

Costa Rica 1.58 1.34 0.96 1.06

Honduras 1.24 1.39 0.92 1.19

Dominican Republic 0.88 0.94 1.16 1.02

South Africa 1.08 0.99 0.89 0.88

All others 2.01 1.31 1.22 1.27

Subtotal, nonsubject 1.36 1.28 0.84 0.91

Average 1.09 1.11 0.90 0.97

Table continued on next page.
 17 U.S. imports of subject merchandise from Brazil accounted for between 60 and 80 percent of total imports

during the period examined.

I-10

Table I-5--Continued

Certain orange juice: U.S. imports, by source, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Source

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Share of quantity (percent)

Brazil (subject) 59.2 79.2 70.6 65.8

Mexico 22.3 4.7 3.8 15.6

Belize 2.1 2.8 9.3 8.6

Costa Rica 13.0 10.0 14.7 8.4

Honduras 2.4 0.4 0.8 0.6

Dominican Republic 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4

South Africa 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3

All others 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3

Subtotal, nonsubject 40.8 20.8 29.4 34.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Brazil (subject) 49.0 76.0 72.7 68.0

Mexico 21.5 5.2 4.2 15.5

Belize 6.8 3.6 5.4 5.4

Costa Rica 18.8 12.0 15.7 9.2

Honduras 2.7 0.5 0.8 0.8

Dominican Republic 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4

South Africa 0.3 1.8 0.1 0.3

All others 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4

Subtotal, nonsubject 51.0 24.0 27.3 32.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Single-strength equivalent (“SSE”) is the volume of single-strength juice that can be reconstituted from concentrated

orange juice.

Note 1.–Crop years are October - September.

Note 2.–Conversion factor: 1 liter = 0.2642 gallons.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce import statistics using HTS numbers 2009.11.0060, 2009.19.2500, and

2009.12.2500.

orange juice declined by 20.0 percentage points from 40.8 percent in 2001/02 to 20.8 percent in 2002/03

and then increased by 13.4 percentage points to 34.2 percent in 2004/05.17

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares are presented in table I-6 and supplements data

provided in tables IV-5 and IV-6 of the staff report for the original investigation. Nonsubject import

market shares, by quantity, were 5.2 percent in 2001/02, 4.2 percent in 2002/03, 4.5 percent in 2003/04,

and 8.0 percent in 2004/05. Nonsubject imports from Belize, Costa Rica, and Mexico accounted for 7.7

of the 8.0 percent market share of total nonsubject imports during 2004/05.
I-11

Table I-6

Certain orange juice: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Source

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE)

Beginning stocks 698,464 692,163 704,509 842,139

U.S. production 1,432,162 1,246,761 1,471,334 1,006,642

Minus: U.S. exports 173,629 94,730 115,410 110,255

 Minus: Ending stocks 692,163 704,509 842,139 590,000

Total domestic shipments 1,264,833 1,139,684 1,218,294 1,148,526

Apparent consumption 1,450,121 1,426,553 1,436,664 1,500,670

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ shipments 87.2 79.9 84.8 76.5

U.S. imports from--

Brazil (subject) 7.6 15.9 10.7 15.4

Mexico 2.9 0.9 0.6 3.7

Belize 0.3 0.6 1.4 2.0

Costa Rica 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0

Honduras 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1

Dominican Republic 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

South Africa 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1

All others 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

Subtotal, nonsubject 5.2 4.2 4.5 8.0

Total imports 12.8 20.1 15.2 23.5

Source: Compiled from table I-5 of this memorandum and table IV-5 from Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No.

731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC Publication 3838, March 2006.

Pricing Information

Imports of pricing product 1 (FCOJM, not organic) from the original investigation are found in

HTS numbers 2009.11.0020, 2009.11.0040, and 2009.11.0060. Since they are not affected by difference

in product mix, comparisons of average unit values of US imports from these three HTS numbers can be

used to evaluate the relative prices for FCOJM from different sources

As seen in table I-7 and figures I-1 to I-4, average unit values for U.S. imports of FCOJM from

Belize and Costa Rica fluctuated from fourth quarter 2001 to first quarter 2003. From 2003-05, average

unit values were lowest for U.S. imports from Belize (although they were not consistently in the market)

and highest for U.S. imports from Costa Rica. Average unit values for U.S. imports of FCOJM from

Belize were higher than those of U.S. imports of FCOJM from Brazil until 2003, were similar in 2003,

and then tended to be lower in 2004 and 2005. Average unit values for U.S. imports of FCOJM from

Costa Rica were higher than those of U.S. imports of FCOJM from Brazil until 2003, when the unit

values were similar. As seen in table I-7 and figure I-4, average unit values of U.S. imports from Mexico

were higher than those from Brazil from 2001 to 2003; in 2004 and 2005, average unit values were

similar.
I-12

Table I-7

FCOJM: Weighted-average monthly landed duty-paid average unit values and quantities of U.S.

imports, by country, October 2001-September 2005

Period

Belize Brazil Costa Rica Mexico

AUV

(per PSE)

Quantity

(1,000

PSEs)

AUV

(per PSE)

Quantity

(1,000

PSEs)

AUV

(per PSE)

Quantity

(1,000

PSEs)

AUV

(per PSE)

Quantity

(1,000

PSEs)

2001:

 October - 0 $0.86 15,164 $1.13 1,562 $1.03 2,119

 November - 0 0.82 13,202 1.78 162 1.02 2,030

 December $2.17 922 0.90 6,945 1.53 52 0.98 7,799

2002:

 January - 0 0.88 3,614 1.10 64 1.04 1,026

 February 4.29 569 0.85 7,253 2.49 110 1.06 3,507

 March 4.21 621 0.81 9,147 1.71 2,272 1.07 3,582

 April - 0 0.89 7,111 1.61 3,401 1.06 4,449

 May 4.21 766 0.92 4,384 2.15 3,818 1.10 4,484

 June 4.29 570 0.89 6,946 5.69 673 1.12 2,874

 July - 0 0.93 6,737 1.44 3,331 1.16 1,594

 August 3.83 266 0.87 10,214 1.18 4,699 1.14 2,118

 September - 0 1.05 11,184 1.16 3,232 1.12 2,282

 October 1.04 101 1.01 15,219 1.29 1,454 1.19 2,536

 November 1.04 101 1.00 13,579 7.31 18 1.19 2,136

 December 0.99 101 1.01 10,940 4.98 172 1.22 3,270

2003:

 January 1.04 101 1.04 31,690 6.66 60 1.23 542

 February 3.93 1,294 1.01 20,803 2.40 1,781 1.27 865

 March 0.93 3,315 1.03 15,684 1.60 3,435 1.16 1,118

 April 1.46 504 1.04 16,083 1.35 7,275 1.20 652

 May 0.98 602 1.05 21,712 1.14 3,408 1.55 468

 June 1.01 217 1.03 14,150 1.16 2,028 1.42 311

 July 1.03 67 1.05 12,956 1.09 1,519 1.30 60

 August 1.02 67 1.05 10,879 1.08 2,136 1.31 264

 September 0.86 1,423 1.00 17,215 1.14 4,658 1.31 89

 October 1.02 134 1.00 20,812 1.04 1,735 - 0

 November 1.05 134 0.97 9,240 1.36 141 1.23 25

 December - 0 0.95 14,294 - 0 1.30 586

Table continued on next page.
I-13

Table I-7–Continued

FCOJM: Weighted-average monthly landed duty-paid average unit values and quantities of U.S.

imports, by country, October 2001-September 2005

Period

Belize Brazil Costa Rica Mexico

AUV

(per PSE)

Quantity

(1,000

PSEs)

AUV

(per PSE)

Quantity

(1,000

PSEs)

AUV

(per PSE)

Quantity

(1,000

PSEs)

AUV

(per PSE)

Quantity

(1,000

PSEs)

2004:

 January $0.87 232 $0.93 11,893 $0.97 27 $0.77 107

 February 0.52 4,887 0.91 10,527 0.93 1,225 0.81 50

 March 0.65 850 0.93 14,488 0.98 4,207 0.97 557

 April 0.53 5,161 0.83 10,227 0.90 5,839 0.91 705

 May 0.54 4,469 0.88 8,379 0.94 5,100 0.78 644

 June 0.58 604 0.87 11,611 0.94 2,991 0.68 675

 July - 0 0.88 10,335 1.07 3,623 0.85 950

 August 0.49 3,165 0.85 6,391 1.09 3,030 0.99 1,378

 September - 0 0.93 10,592 1.09 3,200 1.04 1,216

 October - 0 0.98 11,459 1.07 3,171 1.03 1,971

 November - 0 1.01 22,843 1.18 1,536 1.03 1,100

 December 0.59 2,868 0.88 8,335 1.04 72 1.03 1,631

2005:

 January 0.75 382 0.84 9,087 1.42 255 0.95 2,335

 February 0.62 5,295 0.94 12,194 1.04 1,850 0.99 3,710

 March 0.62 9,356 0.96 19,328 1.07 4,235 0.95 10,883

 April 0.61 9,723 0.91 28,985 1.03 4,186 0.89 9,101

 May 0.79 1,151 0.94 13,697 1.04 5,093 0.82 5,898

 June 0.78 734 1.05 18,796 1.12 4,741 0.99 3,479

 July - 0 1.02 26,327 1.16 1,482 0.97 3,481

 August - 0 1.04 20,764 1.20 2,117 1.10 3,045

 September - 0 1.12 12,126 1.64 86 1.12 3,871

 October - 0 1.05 11,192 1.25 91 1.05 4,367

Note.–Data converted from liters to pounds solid equivalent (PSE) by a factor of .2642/1.029.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
I-14

Figure I-1

FCOJM: Weighted-average monthly landed duty-paid average unit values of U.S. imports from

Belize, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Mexico, by country, October 2001-September 2005

Source: Table I-7.

Figure I-2

FCOJM: Weighted-average monthly landed duty-paid average unit values of U.S. imports from

Belize and Brazil, by country, October 2001-September 2005

Source: Table I-7.
I-15

Figure I-3

FCOJM: Weighted-average monthly landed duty-paid average unit values of U.S. imports from

Brazil and Costa Rica, by country, October 2001-September 2005

Source: Table I-7.

Figure I-4

FCOJM: Weighted-average monthly landed duty-paid average unit values of U.S. imports from

Brazil and Mexico, by country, October 2001-September 2005

Source: Table I-7.
 18 Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, Inv. No. 731-TA-1089 (Final), USITC Publication 3838, March 2006, p. 14. 

I-16

The Global Industry and Market

Information presented in this section of the report relates to production, inventories, exports, and

imports of certain orange juice for nonsubject production in Brazil and for countries other than Brazil

during the original period of investigation: crop years 2001/02 to 2004/05. Where available, growers’

data for oranges are also presented. Round oranges are the primary input to the subject merchandise, with

orange juice processors experiencing significant year-to-year fluctuations in the supply of round

oranges.18

As indicated in tables I-8 and I-9, global trade in orange juice is influenced principally by the 

activities of growers and processors in Brazil and the United States. Approximately half of world orange

production is distributed as processed oranges, with processed oranges accounting for 68 to 83 percent of

total orange production in Brazil and the United States during the period of investigation.

Table I-8

Oranges: World supply and distribution, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Item

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Quantity (1,000 90-pound boxes)

Production 1,221,275 1,123,260 1,245,221 1,115,025

Imports 13,946 18,456 18,480 18,824

Total supply 1,235,221 1,141,716 1,263,701 1,133,848

Fresh, domestic consumption 496,250 494,706 492,672 494,118

Oranges for processing 635,098 536,789 660,833 535,074

Exports 103,873 110,221 110,196 104,657

Total distribution 1,235,221 1,141,716 1,263,701 1,133,848

Shares (percent)

Shares of total distribution:

Fresh, domestic consumption 40.2 43.3 39.0 43.6

Oranges for processing 51.4 47.0 52.3 47.2

Exports 8.4 9.7 8.7 9.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Shares of imports to total supply 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.7

Note.–One box = 40.824 kilograms.

Source: PSD online.
I-17

Table I-9

Oranges: Global production and share of production, by countries, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Country

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Total orange production (1,000 90-pound boxes)

Brazil 450,000 377,010 467,010 406,005

United States 276,716 258,015 287,598 206,348

Italy 88,186 88,235 98,922 104,167

Mexico 98,529 91,520 95,613 98,039

Spain 69,167 72,304 74,804 65,956

Greece 42,255 42,230 44,975 51,593

South Africa 41,569 42,500 42,647 43,505

Australia 30,637 30,637 30,637 31,863

Cuba 30,956 28,137 27,279 25,441

Argentina 26,373 28,064 13,480 18,725

Turkey 17,647 19,608 17,279 19,926

Israel 19,118 17,157 18,382 18,873

China 15,515 9,975 11,103 13,407

Egypt 7,966 11,765 9,755 4,902

Cyprus 3,922 3,505 3,260 4,216

Morocco 2,279 2,181 2,083 1,716

Japan 441 417 392 343

Total 1,221,275 1,123,260 1,245,221 1,115,025

Processed oranges (1,000 90-pound boxes)

Brazil 328,995 257,010 350,000 295,490

United States 228,333 205,049 238,873 156,324

Italy 16,740 20,343 22,475 23,284

Mexico 8,333 1,961 4,902 18,137

Spain 11,569 13,995 12,034 13,284

Greece 7,819 8,113 5,515 6,471

South Africa 7,672 5,956 5,564 3,113

Australia 8,309 4,167 4,657 5,392

Cuba 6,373 9,118 6,985 2,623

Argentina 3,922 3,676 3,922 4,167

Turkey 3,064 3,064 3,064 2,451

Israel 1,569 1,324 686 1,863

China 564 515 613 686

Egypt 858 907 907 980

Cyprus 490 466 515 662

Morocco 441 1,078 123 147

Japan 49 49 0 0

Total 635,098 536,789 660,833 535,074

Table continued on next page.
I-18

Table I-9–Continued

Oranges: Global production and share of production, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Country

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Shares of total processed oranges (percent)

Brazil 51.8 47.9 53.0 55.2

United States 36.0 38.2 36.1 29.2

Italy 2.6 3.8 3.4 4.4

Mexico 1.3 0.4 0.7 3.4

Spain 1.8 2.6 1.8 2.5

Greece 1.2 1.5 0.8 1.2

South Africa 1.2 1.1 0.8 0.6

Australia 1.3 0.8 0.7 1.0

Cuba 1.0 1.7 1.1 0.5

Argentina 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8

Turkey 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5

Israel 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3

China 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Egypt 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2

Cyprus 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Morocco 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0

Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Processed oranges as a share of 

country’s distribution of oranges (percent)

Brazil 73.1 68.2 74.9 72.8

United States 82.5 79.5 83.1 75.8

Italy 19.0 23.1 22.7 22.4

Mexico 8.5 2.1 5.1 18.5

Spain 16.7 19.4 16.1 20.1

Greece 18.5 19.2 12.3 12.5

South Africa 18.5 14.0 13.0 7.2

Australia 27.1 13.6 15.2 16.9

Cuba 20.6 32.4 25.6 10.3

Argentina 14.9 13.1 29.1 22.3

Turkey 17.4 15.6 17.7 12.3

Israel 8.2 7.7 3.7 9.9

China 3.6 5.2 5.5 5.1

Egypt 10.8 7.7 9.3 20.0

Cyprus 12.5 13.3 15.8 15.7

Morocco 19.4 49.4 5.9 8.6

Japan 11.1 11.8 0.0 0.0

World 51.4 47.0 52.3 47.2

Note.--FCOJ and NFC metric tons were converted to SSE gallons by a conversion factor of 1,405.88. 

Source: PSD online.
I-19

Data on orange juice production measured in 1,000 gallons SSE is presented in table I-10. Brazil

and the United States combined accounted for approximately 90 percent of world production. 

Table I-10

Orange juice: Global production and share of production, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Country

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Production (1,000 gallons SSE)

Brazil 1,903,562 1,618,168 2,083,514 1,806,556

United States 1,434,502 1,251,296 1,466,987 975,648

Spain 57,876 78,729 70,294 78,729

Italy 44,315 52,018 56,938 59,047

South Africa 32,377 34,542 32,237 19,997

Mexico 47,800 11,247 28,258 104,176

Australia 36,661 18,385 20,547 23,792

Turkey 17,574 17,574 17,574 14,059

Greece 22,494 27,133 16,871 19,682

Korea 4,559 11,026 13,496 11,305

Israel 26,712 26,712 12,653 21,088

China 2,109 2,109 2,531 2,812

Morocco 2,249 6,186 703 844

Japan 281 281 0 0

 Total 3,633,071 3,155,406 3,822,602 3,137,734

Share of production (percent)

Brazil 52.4 51.3 54.5 57.6

United States 39.5 39.7 38.4 31.1

Spain 1.6 2.5 1.8 2.5

Italy 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.9

South Africa 0.9 1.1 0.8 0.6

Mexico 1.3 0.4 0.7 3.3

Australia 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.8

Turkey 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4

Greece 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.6

Korea 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4

Israel 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.7

China 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Morocco 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0

Japan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.–FCOJ and NFC metric tons were converted to SSE gallons by a conversion factor of 1,405.88. 

Source: PSD online.
I-20

Apparent Consumption in Selected Countries

Table I-11 presents available data on the apparent consumption of orange juice on a country

basis, for countries other than Brazil and the United States. 

Table I-11

Orange juice: Estimated apparent consumption, import penetration, and ratio of exports to

consumption, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Item

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Australia--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 36,661 18,385 20,547 23,792

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 41,653 35,362 59,796 41,473

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 3,502 2,678 3,165 3,045

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) (38,151) (32,684) (56,632) (38,428)

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 68,888 64,670 68,888 68,888

Import penetration (percent)

1 60.5 54.7 86.8 60.2

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 5.1 4.1 4.6 4.4

China--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 2,109 2,109 2,531 2,812

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 50,381 59,785 68,315 64,506

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 4,004 4,294 3,706 3,927

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) (46,377) (55,491) (64,609) (60,579)

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 48,486 57,600 67,139 63,391

Import penetration (percent)

1 103.9 103.8 101.8 101.8

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 8.3 7.5 5.5 6.2

Greece--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 22,494 27,133 16,871 19,682

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 21,088 14,059 18,276 53,632

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 14,762 14,762 11,247 15,848

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) (6,326) 703 (7,029) (37,783)

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 25,789 26,571 24,743 55,357

Import penetration (percent)

1 81.8 52.9 73.9 96.9

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 57.2 55.6 45.5 28.6

Table continued on next page.
I-21

Table I-11–Continued

Orange juice: Estimated apparent consumption, import penetration, and ratio of exports to

consumption, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Item

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Israel

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 26,712 26,712 12,653 21,088

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 63,265 63,265 63,265 56,938

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 52,018 52,018 35,850 26,712

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) (11,247) (11,247) (27,415) (30,226)

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 37,959 44,988 52,721 52,018

Import penetration (percent)

1 166.7 140.6 120.0 109.5

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 137.0 115.6 68.0 51.4

Italy--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 44,315 52,018 56,938 59,047

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 23,048 28,057 35,147 30,929

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 18,804 18,747 21,088 23,900

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) (4,244) (9,310) (14,059) (7,029)

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 55,603 60,758 62,562 64,670

Import penetration (percent)

1 41.5 46.2 56.2 47.8

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 33.8 30.9 33.7 37.0

Japan--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 281 281 0 0

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 135,849 135,773 118,078 142,444

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 0000

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) (135,849) (135,773) (118,078) (142,444)

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 136,130 136,054 127,920 128,385

Import penetration (percent)

1 99.8 99.8 92.3 111.0

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Korea--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 4,559 11,026 13,496 11,305

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 65,199 68,357 54,154 53,440

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 24 60 204 647

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) (65,175) (68,296) (53,951) (52,794)

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 69,559 78,777 68,068 64,295

Import penetration (percent)

1 93.7 86.8 79.6 83.1

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.0

Table continued on next page.
I-22

Table I-11–Continued

Orange juice: Estimated apparent consumption, import penetration, and ratio of exports to

consumption, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Item

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Mexico--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 47,800 11,247 28,258 104,176

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 998 281 867 1,265

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 43,175 5,624 22,543 95,881

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 42,176 5,342 21,676 94,616

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 8,435 5,905 6,582 8,435

Import penetration (percent)

1 11.8 4.8 13.2 15.0

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 511.8 95.2 342.5 1,136.7

Morocco--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 2,249 6,186 703 844

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 703 969 1,173 1,968

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 3,936 2,924 1,122 7

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 3,234 1,956 (51) (1,961)

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 2,249 2,390 3,374 3,508

Import penetration (percent)

1 31.3 40.5 34.8 56.1

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 175.0 122.4 33.3 0.2

South Africa--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 32,377 34,542 32,237 19,997

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 89 343 384 896

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 23,775 16,291 10,484 15,158

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 23,686 15,948 10,100 14,263

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 12,794 16,871 18,276 11,247

Import penetration (percent)

1 0.7 2.0 2.1 8.0

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 185.8 96.6 57.4 134.8

Spain--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 57,876 78,729 70,294 78,729

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 37,959 81,119 124,191 113,166

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 77,323 122,593 153,580 173,650

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 39,365 41,473 29,389 60,484

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 18,511 37,959 39,365 19,083

Import penetration (percent)

1 205.1 213.7 315.5 593.0

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 417.7 323.0 390.1 910.0

Table continued on next page.
I-23

Table I-11–Continued

Orange juice: Estimated apparent consumption, import penetration, and ratio of exports to

consumption, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Item

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Turkey--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 17,574 17,574 17,574 14,059

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 3,769 3,882 5,715 7,767

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 337 917 617 1,265

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) (3,432) (2,965) (5,098) (6,502)

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 20,385 20,526 22,213 22,494

Import penetration (percent)

1 18.5 18.9 25.7 34.5

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 1.7 4.5 2.8 5.6

World Total--

Production (1,000 gallons SSE) 3,633,071 3,155,406 3,822,602 3,137,734

Imports (1,000 gallons SSE) 632,725 782,310 771,709 926,057

Exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 2,180,237 2,195,466 2,378,965 2,370,222

Net exports (1,000 gallons SSE) 1,547,513 1,413,155 1,607,257 1,444,165

Apparent consumption (1,000 gallons SSE) 4,256,513 3,761,468 4,147,720 3,475,472

Import penetration (percent)

1 14.9 20.8 18.6 26.6

Exports to consumption (ratio)

2 51.2 58.4 57.4 68.2

Note.–FCOJ and NFC metric tons were converted to SSE gallons by a conversion factor of 1,405.88. 

Source: PSD Online

Global Trade

Data on global imports and exports of orange juice are shown in tables I-12 and I-13. Most of the

orange juice traded on the world market is imported by the United States and the European Union (table

I-12). Brazil is, by far, the most substantial orange juice exporter (table I-13).
I-24

Table I-12

Orange juice: Global imports, by destination, 2002-05

Destination

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE)

United States 229,271 319,164 213,889 313,900

Other importing countries--

 European Union (external trade) 440,029 305,872 390,035 499,640

 China 49,192 69,750 56,970 83,074

 Russia 46,850 61,186 63,236 74,189

 Canada 21,515 42,619 67,815 72,900

 South Korea 66,076 56,835 54,175 53,283

 Australia 34,529 35,645 57,994 47,787

 Norway 25,467 25,424 28,197 32,045

 Japan 15,035 13,667 15,471 15,590

 All others 79,114 75,408 91,440 97,370

 Total 1,007,078 1,005,570 1,039,220 1,289,778

Unit value (per gallon)

United States $0.97 $0.83 $0.72 $0.73

Other importing countries--

 European Union (external trade) 0.44 0.50 0.37 0.36

 China 0.88 0.88 0.75 0.71

 Russia 0.78 0.73 0.85 0.81

 Canada 4.23 3.40 2.93 3.09

 South Korea 0.89 0.98 0.85 0.78

 Australia 0.76 0.90 0.71 0.65

 Norway 0.87 0.89 0.75 0.71

 Japan 6.02 6.13 5.45 5.41

 All others (1

) (1) 0.92 0.88

 Average (1) (1) (1) (1)

Share of quantity (percent)

United States 22.8 31.7 20.6 24.3

Other importing countries--

 European Union (external trade) 43.7 30.4 37.5 38.7

 China 4.9 6.9 5.5 6.4

 Russia 4.7 6.1 6.1 5.8

 Canada 2.1 4.2 6.5 5.7

 South Korea 6.6 5.7 5.2 4.1

 Australia 3.4 3.5 5.6 3.7

 Norway 2.5 2.5 2.7 2.5

 Japan 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.2

 All others 7.9 7.5 8.8 7.5

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Not available.

Source: HTS subheadings 2009.11 and 2009.12 of the Global Trade Atlas®, Global Trade Information Services, Inc.,

www.gtis.com, retrieved May 16, 2007. Kilograms are converted to gallons by a conversion factor of 1.40588; liters are converted

to gallons by a conversion factor of 0.2642.
I-25

Table I-13

Orange juice: Global exports, by source, 2002-05

Source Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 gallons, SSE)

United States 142,396 93,522 131,432 121,459

Other exporting countries--

 Brazil 1,606,004 1,873,518 1,883,824 2,131,800

 Mexico 30,662 1,854 3,385 13,720

 European Union (external trade) 44,884 37,359 37,437 38,742

 Canada 1,507 3,713 4,188 4,483

 Costa Rica 18,472 10,391 24,700 19,930

 Argentina 8,896 4,725 6,333 11,822

 All others 49,836 37,606 26,876 31,877

 Total 1,902,657 2,062,688 2,118,173 2,373,832

Unit value (per gallon)

United States $1.55 $2.46 $2.20 $2.55

Other exporting countries--

 Brazil 0.56 0.52 0.46 0.43

 Mexico 1.83 5.85 4.39 4.93

 European Union (external trade) 0.55 0.88 0.93 0.89

 Canada 2.51 2.23 1.86 1.90

 Costa Rica 0.48 0.38 0.67 0.42

 Argentina 0.53 0.61 0.54 0.61

 All others (1

) (1) 0.87 1.52

 Average (1

) (1) 0.59 0.59

Share of quantity (percent)

United States 7.5 4.5 6.2 5.1

Other exporting countries--

 Brazil 84.4 90.8 88.9 89.8

 Mexico 1.6 0.1 0.2 0.6

 European Union (external trade) 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.6

 Canada 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2

 Costa Rica 1.0 0.5 1.2 0.8

 Argentina 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5

 All others 2.6 1.8 1.3 1.3

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Not available.

Note.--Kilograms are converted to gallons by a conversion factor of 1.40588; liters are converted to gallons by a

conversion factor of 0.2642.

Source: HTS subheadings 2009.11 and 2009.12 of the Global Trade Atlas®, Global Trade Information Services,

Inc., www.gtis.com, retrieved May 15, 2007. 
 19 71 FR 2183, January 13, 2006. At the time of the filing of the original petition, there was an existing

antidumping duty order on FCOJ from Brazil. The scope of the investigation, therefore, covers only FCOJM

produced and/or exported by those companies that were excluded or revoked from the pre-existing antidumping

order on FCOJ from Brazil as of December 27, 2004. 70 FR 49557, August 24, 2005. This includes all Brazilian

producers/exporters except Citrovita.

 20 Four additional (subject) Brazilian orange producers (Coinbra, Cutrale, Fischer/Citrosuco, and Montecitrus

Group) also provided data during the original investigation. These four firms accounted for approximately ***

percent of Brazilian production of certain orange juice in 2004/05. (Original staff report, INV-DD-010 (January 27,

2006), p. VII-5.) The following tabulation presents data for both the subject and nonsubject producers:

Item

Actual experience Projections

 Crop year (July-June) July-September

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2004 2005 2005/06 2006/07

Quantity (1,000 pounds solids)

Subject producers:

 Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Citrovita (nonsubject):

 Capacity *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Source: Tables I-14 of this memorandum and table VII-4 from the original staff report (INV-DD-010, January 27,

2006).

As shown, Citrovita’s operations accounted for *** percent of total production of certain orange juice in Brazil

during crop year 2004/05.

 21 Production was also *** than capacity during the interim periods.

I-26

Nonsubject Production in Brazil

Product from Brazilian producer Citrovita Agro Industrial Ltda. (“Citrovita”) constitutes

nonsubject merchandise since the firm is not covered by the scope of the investigation as defined by

Commerce.19 Table I-14 presents data submitted by Citrovita during the Commission’s original

investigation.20 Reported processing capacity *** Citrovita’s production of FCOJM in 2001/02 and

2003/04 while FCOJM production was *** than reported processing capacity in 2002/03 and 2004/05.21

The firm anticipated *** excess capacity to produce FCOJM in either 2005/06 or 2006/07. ***. 

Table I-14

FCOJM (nonsubject Brazil): Citrovita production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories,

2001/02-2004/05, July-September 2004, July-September 2005, and projected 2005/06-2006/07

* * * * * * *
 22 Citrus Fruit, Fresh and Processed, Annual Statistics 2003, FAO/UN, CCP: CI/ST/2003. Compare also

2003/04 data for table I-15 (Belizean orange production for exporting and processing to table I-9 (world orange

production)).

 23 Figures based on official FAO data. Global Trade Atlas® data on exports from Belize are not available.

 24 CPB did not provide a response to the Commission questionnaire sent to it in this remand investigation.

 25 According to the “Pounds Solids Authority Annual Report Crop Year 2004/05" CPB processed 43 percent of

the total orange crop in 2004/05. A total of 564 growers delivered oranges to the CPB processing plants. Ibid. 

There are believed to be about 1,000 orange growers in Belize. Official statistics of the Belize Citrus Growers

Association, www.belizecitrus.org, and the Belize Agricultural Health Authority.

 26 www.citrusproductsbelize.com, retrieved May 21, 2007.

 27 Figures calculated from data for 2003/04 in table I-15. 

I-27

The Industries in Nonsubject Countries

Belize

Belize produced about 213,400 metric tons of oranges in the 2004/05 season, or less than 1

percent of world production.22 According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(“FAO”) data, Belize exported 25,900 metric tons of frozen concentrated orange juice in 2004. This

amount accounted for about 1.1 percent of world exports of concentrated orange juice in 2004.23

Citrus Products of Belize, Ltd. (“CPB”) reportedly is the primary processor of concentrated juices

and not-from-concentrate juices.24 Groves planted by CPB account for about 20 percent of the Belizean

citrus industry.25 The CPB groves in the Stann Creek Valley and Cayo District are located within 100

miles of its processing facilities. CPB maintains two processing plants - one in the Alta Vista Valley

(Belize Food Products Ltd. & Top Juice Ltd.) and one in the Poona Valley (Citrus Company of Belize

Ltd.).26

Data on the fresh orange and orange processing industry in Belize are presented in table I-15. As

shown, the numbers of oranges processed and factory recovery of solids from oranges have risen sharply

from 2002/03 to 2004/05. About 95 percent of the orange production in Belize is processed into juice, 2

percent is rejected at the factory, and 3 percent is exported as fresh fruit exports.27 
I-28

Table I-15

Fresh oranges and processed orange solids: Production in Belize, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Item

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Fresh oranges exported (90-pound

boxes) (1

) (1) 169,886 (1)

Oranges rejected at factories (90-

pound boxes) (1

) (1) 109,987 (1)

Oranges processed at factories (90-

pound boxes) 4,122,594 4,046,295 4,946,717 6,264,847

 Total (90-pound boxes) (1

) (1) 5,226,590 (1)

Processed orange solids (factory):

 CCB2

 (pounds solid equivalent) (1) (1) (1) 15,751,456

 BFP3

 (pounds solid equivalent) (1) (1) (1) 22,797,948

 Total (1

) 23,374,326 28,322,764 38,549,404

 1 Not available.

 2

 Citrus Company of Belize Ltd.

 3

 Belize Food Products Ltd.

Source: Pounds Solid Authority Annual Report Crop Year 2004/05, Belize Citrus Growers Association, found at

www.belizecitrus.org, retrieved May 18, 2007. According to the report, data for the two plants represent an

“industry total” for the most recent crop year.

The following tabulation provides the volume of U.S. imports of certain orange juice from Belize:

Item

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE) 3,822 8,123 20,205 30,366

Value (1,000 dollars) 13,747 11,486 10,602 18,484

Unit value (per gallon) $3.60 $1.41 $0.52 $0.61

Source: Table I-5 of this memorandum.

All U.S. imports of orange juice from Belize were FCOJM, for which Belize was the third leading

supplier to the United States in 2004/05 after Brazil and Mexico (tables I-5, D-1, and D-2). Belize

accounted for 8.6 percent of the quantity of all U.S. imports of certain orange juice in 2004/05 (table I-5).
 28 Compare table I-9 to table I-16.

 29 Commission questionnaires in this remand investigation were sent to the following firms in Costa Rica: 

TicoFrut (San José); Del Oro (La Cruz, Guanacaste); Dos Pinos (San Jose); Fructa C.R., S.A. (San Jose); and Suco

Citro, S.A., an affiliate of Fructa C.R. (San Jose). Only Del Oro provided a response; information provided by the

firm is shown in app. E. 

 30 See app. E. for data on Del Oro’s processing capacity; the firm made a ***.

 31 “Costa Rica Citrus Annual 2005,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 15, 2005.

 32 Telegram O 171611Z, May 7, 2007 from the U.S. Embassy (San Jose, Costa Rica) and letter from ***, May

23, 2007.

I-29

Costa Rica

Costa Rica accounts for only a small share of the world’s orange production.28 The majority of its

orange production is exported as frozen concentrate. In 2005, Costa Rica accounted for 0.8 percent of

global exports of orange juice (table I-13) although it regularly supplies orange juice to the United States

(table I-5).

Costa Rican orange production is concentrated in the northwest part of the country, along the

border with Nicaragua. Most of the processing is done by two companies, TicoFrut and Del Oro, which

also process pineapples during the off-season.29 TicoFrut and Del Oro are reported by the USDA to have

continued “to improve” their plants and processing capacity30 and, with respect to TicoFrut, purchased

additional orange groves and replanted trees. A significant share of the fresh oranges obtained by these

processors are grown across the border in Nicaragua. Recent higher prices for orange juice in the

international markets have spurred orange production in both Costa Rica and Nicaragua.31

Available data on fresh orange production in Costa Rica are presented in table I-16.

Table I-16

Oranges: Acres planted, orange bearing trees, and production in Costa Rica, crop year 2005/06

Item

Crop year 2005/06

Forecast

Area planted (acres) 49,420

Oranges produced (1,000 90-pound boxes)

1 8,000

Orange solids produced:

 Unit (1,000 pounds solid at 66 Brix) 41,600

 Unit (1,000 gallons SSE ) 5,487

 1 Includes an estimated 1,000 boxes coming from Nicaragua.

Note.–One hectare = 2.471 acres; one box = 40.824 kilograms; one metric ton = 191.91 SSE gallons (66 Brix).

Source: Costa Rica Citrus Annual 2005, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 15, 2005.

There is minimal information available on the frozen concentrated orange juice processing

industry in Costa Rica. Neither the Government of Costa Rica nor any private source maintains industrywide data although processors apparently report data on their operations to a Costa Rican governmental

authority.32 As indicated above, the majority of the orange production in Costa Rica is exported as orange

juice. Table I-17 presents export data for Costa Rica by market. In quantity terms, exports of 
I-30

Table I-17

Orange juice: Export markets for product from Costa Rica, 2002-05

Export market

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE)

FCOJM:1

 Netherlands 17,495 427 0 450

 United States 883 0 0 134

 Panama 95 0 543 535

 All others 0 82 54 0

 Total 18,472 509 597 1,119

NFCOJ:2

 Netherlands 0 9,877 11,883 18,810

 Bahamas 0 0 10,870 0

 United States 0 5 1,350 0

 Total 0 9,883 24,103 18,810

Total:3

 Netherlands 20,619 10,716 13,376 21,866

 United States 31,675 31,459 12,928 25,138

 Panama 512 119 565 552

 Bahamas 0 0 13,279 0

 All others 1,977 2,697 3,139 4,001

 Total 54,783 44,992 43,286 51,557

Unit value (per gallon)

FCOJM:1

 Netherlands $0.46 $0.23 (4) $0.32

 United States 0.90 (4

) (4) 0.76

 Panama 0.56 (4

) $0.47 0.53

 All others (4

) 0.40 0.45 (4)

 Total 0.48 0.25 0.46 0.47

NFCOJ:2

 Netherlands (4) 0.38 0.34 0.42

 Bahamas (4

) (4) 0.99 (4)

 United States (4

) 0.49 1.02 (4)

 Total (4

) 0.38 0.67 0.42

Total:3

 Netherlands 0.46 0.39 0.34 0.41

 United States 1.00 1.05 0.92 0.94

 Panama 0.58 0.58 0.47 0.52

 Bahamas (4

) (4) 0.98 (4)

 All others 0.62 0.47 0.42 0.52

 Total 0.78 0.86 0.72 0.68

Table continued on next page.
I-31

Table I-17–Continued

Orange juice: Export markets for product from Costa Rica, 2002-05

Export market

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Share of quantity (percent)

FCOJM:1

 Netherlands 94.7 83.8 0.0 40.2

 United States 4.8 0.0 0.0 12.0

 Panama 0.5 0.0 90.9 47.8

 All others 0.0 16.2 9.1 0.0

 TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NFCOJ:2

 Netherlands 0.0 99.9 49.3 100.0

 Bahamas 0.0 0.0 45.1 0.0

 United States 0.0 0.1 5.6 0.0

 Total 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total:3

 Netherlands 37.6 23.8 30.9 42.4

 United States 57.8 69.9 29.9 48.8

 Panama 0.9 0.3 1.3 1.1

 Bahamas 0.0 0.0 30.7 0.0

 All others 3.6 6.0 7.3 7.8

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 HTS 2009.11.00.

 2

 HTS 2009.12.00.

 3

 Exports reported under HTS subheading 2009.19.00 (“other” orange juice) were included in the total in an effort

to capture all exports of certain orange juice. 

 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–Kilograms are converted to gallons by a conversion factor of 1.40588; liters are converted to gallons by a

conversion factor of 0.2642.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

orange juice from Costa Rica have ranged between a low of 43.2 million gallons SSE in 2004 and a high

of 54.8 million gallons SSE in 2002. The United States is the destination for the largest amount of

exports of orange juice from Costa Rica, followed by the Netherlands.

The following tabulation provides the volume of U.S. imports of certain orange juice from Costa

Rica:
 33 Commission questionnaires in this remand investigation were sent to the following firms: CitroFrut S.A. de

C.V. (“CitroFrut”) (Monterrey, N.L.); Procimart (Tamaulipas); Citrotam International, S.P.R. de R.I. (Guemez); and

Fruitec (Col. America Guadalupe, N.L.). CitroFrut and Procimart provided responses to the questionnaire; data

provided by the firms are presented in appendix E.

 34 “Mexico Citrus Annual 2005,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 14, 2005.

 35 “Mexico Citrus Semi-Annual Report 2005,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, May 11, 2005.

 36 “Mexico Citrus Annual 2005,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 14, 2005.

Production costs also vary between regions and producers. Differing cost structures are due primarily to variations

in irrigation costs but can also be attributed to fertilization and pest control costs. Ibid.

 37 Calculated from figures in table I-18.

I-32

Item

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE) 24,054 28,755 32,020 29,658

Value (1,000 dollars) 37,960 38,397 30,781 31,411

Unit value (per gallon) $1.58 $1.34 $0.96 $1.06

Source: Table I-5.

U.S. imports of Costa Rican orange juice have fluctuated between 24 and 32 million gallons during the

last four crop years. Costa Rica exported only FCOJM to the United States during the original period of

investigation (tables I-5, D-1, and D-2). Costa Rica was the fourth leading supplier of the product to the

United States in 2004/05 after Brazil, Mexico, and Belize. Costa Rica accounted for 8.4 percent of the

quantity of total U.S. imports of certain orange juice in 2004/05 (table I-5).

Mexico

Less than 9 percent of world production of oranges is in Mexico (table I-9, calculated for

2004/05). Mexico’s share of total processed oranges is less than 4 percent (table I-9) while its share of

global exports of orange juice is less than 2 percent (table I-13). 

Several firms currently process orange juice in Mexico.33 Reportedly owing to financial problems

within the Mexican processing industry and droughts, the Mexican industry has become more

concentrated with the number of processors declining from a previous estimate of 22 firms to only 7 in

2005.34 There were an estimated 67,000 citrus growers located throughout Mexico, most of which were

believed to be growing oranges.35 Data on orange production in Mexico are presented in table I-18 with

production by type of orange shown in table I-19. According to the USDA, fresh orange production in

the most recent crop year fell to 3.9 million tons from 4.3 million tons in 2004/05 due to lack of rain in

the northern states during the first quarter of 2005. The heavy rainfalls caused by hurricanes during

September and October 2005 were also a factor leading to reduced production. According to the 2005

GAIN report “{p}roducers do not expect an increase in the number of {fresh orange} groves. In general,

growers have been abandoning groves, or switching to other crops, due to the high production costs, wide

swings in fresh orange prices, and marketing problems. Increases in orange production are more a result

of increased tree density than of expansion in area planted.”36 As shown in table I-18, most of the oranges

grown in Mexico are consumed domestically as fresh squeezed juice. In 2005/06 it is forecast that 11

percent will be processed and less than 1 percent will be exported.37
I-33

Table I-18

Oranges: Acres planted and harvested, orange bearing trees, production and utilization of

oranges in Mexico, crop years 2002/03, 2003/04, 2004/05, and 2005/06

Item

Crop year

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06

Revised Revised Estimate Forecast

Area planted (1,000 acres) 878,161 864,121 825,314 825,314

Area harvested (1,000 acres) 815,287 825,991 815,430 810,488

Bearing trees (1,000 trees) 66,648 67,523 66,660 66,256

Non-bearing trees (1,000 trees) 5,089 3,117 810 1,212

 Total trees (1,000 trees) 71,737 70,640 67,470 67,468

Oranges produced (1,000 90-pound boxes) 91,520 95,613 105,392 95,588

Oranges imported (1,000 90-pound boxes) 956 441 490 441

 Total supply (1,000 90-pound boxes) 92,475 96,054 105,882 96,029

Exports (1,000 90-pound boxes) 172 319 490 490

Fresh domestic consumption (1,000 90-pound

boxes) 90,343 90,833 89,461 85,245

Processed (1,000 90-pound boxes) 1,961 4,902 15,931 10,294

 Total distribution (1,000 90-pound boxes) 92,475 96,054 105,882 96,029

Note.–One hectare = 2.471 acres; 40.8 kg. = 90-pound box.

Source: “Mexico Citrus Annual 2004", USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, December 13, 2004 and "Mexico

Citrus Annual 2004", USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 14, 2005.

Table I-19

Oranges: Production in Mexico, by variety, 2002-04

Variety 2002 2003 2004

(1,000 90-pound boxes)

Early season and other 51,705 49,107 12,912

Valencia 46,338 44,749 84,255

Navel 495 405 313

 Total 98,539 94,261 97,480

Source: Compiled from SAGARPA, SAICON statistics.

Reportedly, orange production in Mexico was forecast to decrease from 2004/05 to 2005/06 due

to both dry weather conditions and strong rainfalls, with a resulting decrease in the supply of oranges and
 38 “Mexico Citrus Annual 2005,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 14, 2005, p. 3.

 39 “Mexico Citrus Annual 2005,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 14, 2005.

Reliable data on the Mexican orange juice production are difficult to obtain because the Government of Mexico does

not maintain official statistics. According to the USDA FAS, the industry “tends to keep partial information most of

which is proprietary.” Ibid.

 40 “Mexico Citrus Annual 2005,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 14, 2005.

 41 There was no change reported in the level of inventory stocked.

 42 “Mexico Citrus Annual 2005,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 14, 2005.

 43 “Mexico Citrus Annual 2005,” USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 14, 2005, p. 11.

I-34

FCOJ production.38 Low international prices for frozen concentrated orange juice are also reported to

have led to a decline in processed orange juice production “in recent years.”39

FCOJ production for 2005 is forecast at about 59 million gallons SSE (table I-20).40 Most of the

FCOJ processed in Mexico is exported since domestic consumers prefer to squeeze their own fresh orange

juice. In 2005, 88 percent is forecasted to be exported while the remaining 12 percent should be

consumed domestically.41 However, domestic demand has been slowly increasing, mainly from hotel

chains and restaurants as well as increasing demand for beverages and other food products with an orange

flavoring.42

Table I-20

FCOJ: Distribution in Mexico, 2002-05

Item

Market year beginning--

01/2002 01/2003 01/2004 01/2005

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE)

Beginning stocks 1,406 1,406 1,406 4,218

Production 11,247 28,258 91,382 59,047

Imports 281 867 872 872

 Total supply 12,934 30,531 93,660 64,136

Exports 5,624 22,543 82,694 52,889

Domestic consumption 5,905 6,582 6,748 7,029

Ending stocks 1,406 1,406 4,218 4,218

 Total distribution 12,934 30,531 93,660 64,136

Note.–FCOJ metric tons at 65 Brix were converted to SSE gallons by a conversion factor of 1,405.88.

Source: “Mexico Citrus Annual 2004", USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, December 13, 2004 and

"Mexico Citrus Annual 2005", USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, November 14, 2005.

Most Mexican orange juice is exported to the United States, followed by the Netherlands (table I21). According to the Mexican processing industry, more orange juice is being exported to the EU and

Japan following trade agreements that give it lower tariffs in those markets.43
I-35

Table I-21

Orange juice: Export markets for product from Mexico, by product, 2002-05

Export market

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Quantity (thousand gallons SSE)

FCOJM:1

 United States 14,241 835 1,589 8,321

 Netherlands 6,878 29 186 2,740

 Japan 1,436 309 311 485

 Venezuela 662 0 112 309

 Germany 2,931 25 142 292

 United Kingdom 1,049 375 426 228

 All others 3,382 175 147 744

 Total 30,578 1,747 2,913 13,119

NFCOJ:2

 United States 36 2 346 455

 Aruba 14 27 20 35

 All others 34 78 105 111

 Total 84 107 472 600

Total:3

 United States 24,043 2,844 4,226 12,663

 Netherlands 6,878 35 187 2,741

 Japan 1,440 309 311 485

 Venezuela 746 6 119 323

 Germany 2,931 25 142 292

 United Kingdom 1,049 375 429 231

 Aruba 41 27 20 35

 All others 3,524 292 297 894

 Total 40,652 3,913 5,732 17,663

Unit value (per gallon)

FCOJM:1

 United States $2.16 $5.81 $4.93 $5.07

 Netherlands 1.16 5.67 4.69 4.77

 Japan 2.94 6.49 5.69 7.00

 Venezuela 3.79 (4) 5.48 5.85

 Germany 0.75 3.48 3.77 4.35

 United Kingdom 2.33 5.50 4.55 4.47

 All others 1.73 7.99 4.61 5.56

 Total 1.83 6.05 4.88 5.10

NFCOJ:2

 United States 0.93 4.61 0.95 0.94

 Aruba 2.36 2.34 2.33 2.23

 All others 2.70 2.58 2.38 2.75

 Total 1.89 2.55 1.33 1.35

Total:3

 United States 1.49 3.03 2.74 3.80

 Netherlands 1.17 5.04 4.70 4.77

 Japan 2.94 6.49 5.69 7.00

 Venezuela 3.46 2.37 5.28 5.71

 Germany 0.75 3.48 3.77 4.35

 United Kingdom 2.33 5.50 4.53 4.44

 Aruba 1.04 2.34 2.33 2.23

 All others 1.71 5.70 3.39 5.05

 Total 1.51 3.75 3.21 4.15

Table continued on next page.
 44 Costa Rica was the second-largest supplier (after Brazil) of certain orange juice to the U.S. market in 2002/03

and 2003/04.

I-36

Table I-21–Continued

Orange juice: Export markets for product from Mexico, 2002-05

Export market

Calendar year

2002 2003 2004 2005

Share of quantity (percent)

FCOJM:1

 United States 46.6 47.8 54.5 63.4

 Netherlands 22.5 1.7 6.4 20.9

 Japan 4.7 17.7 10.7 3.7

 Venezuela 2.2 0.0 3.8 2.4

 Germany 9.6 1.4 4.9 2.2

 United Kingdom 3.4 21.4 14.6 1.7

 All others 11.1 10.0 5.0 5.7

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NFCOJ:2

 United States 42.6 1.5 73.4 75.7

 Aruba 16.4 25.5 4.3 5.8

 All others 40.9 73.0 22.3 18.5

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Total:3

 United States 59.1 72.7 73.7 71.7

 Netherlands 16.9 0.9 3.3 15.5

 Japan 3.5 7.9 5.4 2.7

 Venezuela 1.8 0.2 2.1 1.8

 Germany 7.2 0.6 2.5 1.7

 United Kingdom 2.6 9.6 7.5 1.3

 Aruba 0.1 0.7 0.4 0.2

 All others 8.7 7.5 5.2 5.1

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1

 HTS 2009.11.00.

 2

 HTS 2009.12.00.

 3

 Exports reported under HTS subheading 2009.19.00 (“other” orange juice) were included in the total in an effort

to capture all exports of certain orange juice. 

 4

 Not applicable.

Note.–FCOJM and NFCOJ metric tons were converted to SSE gallons by a conversion factor of 1,405.88.

Source: Global Trade Atlas.

In crop-year 2004/05, Mexico was the second-leading supplier of certain orange juice to the U.S.

market after Brazil, with imports of about 55 million gallons. The volume of product shipped from

Mexico has, however, fluctuated throughout the period examined with smaller quantities imported in crop

years 2002/03 and 2003/04.44 Data on U.S. imports of certain orange juice from Mexico are provided in

the following tabulation:
I-37

Item

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE) 41,358 13,467 8,209 54,822

Value (1,000 dollars) 43,486 16,591 8,339 53,106

Unit value (per gallon) $1.05 $1.23 $1.02 $0.97

Source: Table I-5.

Both FCOJM and NFCOJ are exported to the United States from Mexico (tables D-1 and D-2). Virtually

all U.S. imports of NFCOJ were from Mexico and Brazil during the original period of investigation. 

Orange juice from Mexico is subject to a 40 million-gallon quota under NAFTA, although in 2008 the

U.S. quota is scheduled to be completely phased out. In 2007, Mexican orange juice may enter the

United States free of duty within quota, and is subject to a duty of 1.57 cents per liter over quota.

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES
 
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices 387

1The imported product subject to this 

investigation is certain orange juice for transport 

and/or manufacturing, produced in two different 

forms: (1) Frozen orange juice in a highly 

concentrated form, referred to as frozen 

concentrated orange juice for further manufacturing 

(‘‘FCOJM’’); and (2) pasteurized single-strength 

orange juice which has not been concentrated, 

referred to as not-from-concentrate orange juice. 

Excluded from the scope of the investigation are: (1) 

Imports of reconstituted orange juice and frozen 

orange juice for retail and (2) imports of FCOJM 

from Brazilian manufacturers/exporters covered by 

the existing antidumping duty order on frozen 

concentrated orange juice from Brazil.

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainants are—3M 

Company, 3M Corporate Headquarters, 

3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota 55144; 

3M Innovative Properties Company, 3M 

Corporate Headquarters, 3M Center, St. 

Paul, Minnesota 55144; Mr. Jean 

Silvestre, Grand Enclos 2, 4180 Hamoir, 

Belgium;

(b) The respondents are the following 

companies alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

Boss Auto Import, S.A., Avenida del 

Valles, 28, 08440 Cardedeu, Barcelona, 

Spain; Chemicar USA, Inc., 670 New 

York Street, Memphis, Tennessee 

38104; EMM America, Inc., 349 Owl 

Street, Campton, New Hampshire 

03223; E.M.M. International B.V., 

Marsweg 59, 8013 PE Zwolle, 

Netherlands; Indasa, S.A., Zona 

Industrial de Aveiro, Lote 46, P.O. Box 

3005, 3801–903, Aveiro, Portugal; 

Indasa U.S.A., Inc., 9 Falstrom Court, 

Passaic, New Jersey 07055; Intertape 

Polymer Corporation, 3647 Cortez Road 

West, Bradenton, Florida; IPG 

Administrative Services, Inc., 3647 

Cortez Road West, Bradenton, Florida 

34210; Intertape Polymer Group, Inc., 

110 E. Montee de Liesse, Montreal, 

Quebec, Canada, H4T 1N4; Saint-Gobain 

Abrasifs (France), Rue de 

L’Ambassadeur, BP8, 78702 ConflansSaint-Honorine, France; Saint-Gobain 

Abrasives, Inc., 1 New Bond Street, 

Worcester, Massachusetts 01606; 

Transtar Autobody Technologies, Inc., 

2040 Heiserman Drive, Brighton, 

Michigan 48114; Vosschemie GmbH, 

Esinger Steinweg 50, D–25436 Uetersen, 

Germany. 

(c) Steven R. Pedersen, Esq., Office of 

Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 

20436, who shall be the Commission 

investigative attorney, party to this 

investigation; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Honorable Charles E. Bullock is 

designated as the presiding 

administrative law judge. 

A response to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such 

response will be considered by the 

Commission if received not later than 20 

days after the date of service by the 

Commission of the complaint and the 

notice of investigation. Extensions of 

time for submitting the response to the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter a final determination 

containing such findings, and may 

result in the issuance of a limited 

exclusion order or cease and desist 

order or both directed against the 

respondent.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 28, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–36 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1089 

(Preliminary)] 

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Institution of antidumping 

investigation and scheduling of a 

preliminary phase investigation. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the institution of an 

investigation and commencement of 

preliminary phase antidumping 

investigation No. 731–TA–1089 

(Preliminary) under section 733(a) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) 

(the Act) to determine whether there is 

a reasonable indication that an industry 

in the United States is materially 

injured or threatened with material 

injury, or the establishment of an 

industry in the United States is 

materially retarded, by reason of 

imports from Brazil of certain orange 

juice,1 provided for in subheadings 

2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 

2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States, that are 

alleged to be sold in the United States 

at less than fair value. Unless the 

Department of Commerce extends the 

time for initiation pursuant to section 

732(c)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1673a(c)(1)(B)), the Commission must 

reach a preliminary determination in 

antidumping investigations in 45 days, 

or in this case by February 10, 2005. The 

Commission’s views are due at 

Commerce within five business days 

thereafter, or by February 17, 2005.

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this investigation and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 27, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Haines (202) 205–3200), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 

(202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at (202) 205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—This investigation is 

being instituted in response to a petition 

filed on December 27, 2004, on behalf 

of Florida Citrus Mutual, Lakeland, FL; 

A. Duda & Sons (d/b/a Citrus Belle) 

Ovieda, FL; Citrus World, Inc., Lake 

Wales, FL; Peace River Citrus Products, 

Inc., Arcadia, FL; and Southern Garden 

Citrus Processing Corp. (d/b/a Southern 

Gardens), Clewiston, FL. 

Participation in the investigation and 

public service list.—Persons (other than 

petitioners) wishing to participate in the 

investigation as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the 

Commission’s rules, not later than seven 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Industrial users 

and (if the merchandise under 

388 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 2 / Tuesday, January 4, 2005 / Notices 

investigation is sold at the retail level) 

representative consumer organizations 

have the right to appear as parties in 

Commission antidumping 

investigations. The Secretary will 

prepare a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to this investigation upon the expiration 

of the period for filing entries of 

appearance. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in this investigation available 

to authorized applicants representing 

interested parties (as defined in 19 

U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the 

investigation under the APO issued in 

the investigation, provided that the 

application is made not later than seven 

days after the publication of this notice 

in the Federal Register. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Conference.—The Commission’s 

Director of Operations has scheduled a 

conference in connection with this 

investigation for 9:30 a.m. on January 

19, 2005, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building, 500 E Street, 

SW., Washington, DC. Parties wishing to 

participate in the conference should 

contact Betsy Haines (202) 205–3200 not 

later than January 14, 2005, to arrange 

for their appearance. Parties in support 

of the imposition of antidumping duties 

in this investigation and parties in 

opposition to the imposition of such 

duties will each be collectively 

allocated one hour within which to 

make an oral presentation at the 

conference. A nonparty who has 

testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the conference. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the 

Commission’s rules, any person may 

submit to the Commission on or before 

January 24, 2005, a written brief 

containing information and arguments 

pertinent to the subject matter of the 

investigation. Parties may file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the conference no later 

than three days before the conference. If 

briefs or written testimony contain BPI, 

they must conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, 

and 207.7 of the Commission’s rules. 

The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the investigation must 

be served on all other parties to the 

investigation (as identified by either the 

public or BPI service list), and a 

certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service.

Authority: This investigation is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.12 of the 

Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Issued: December 18, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05–37 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Importer of Controlled Substances; 

Notice of Registration 

By Notice dated July 28, 2004 and 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 10, 2004, (69 FR 48521), 

Applied Science Labs, Inc., A Division 

of Alltech Associates Inc., 2701 

Carolean Industrial Drive, State College, 

Pennsylvania 16801, made application 

by renewal to the Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA) to be registered as 

an importer of the following basic 

classes of controlled substance:

Drug Schedule 

Heroin (9200) ................................ I 

Cocaine (9041) ............................. II 

Codeine (9050) ............................. II 

Meperidine (9230) ......................... II 

Methadone (9250) ........................ II 

Morphine (9300) ........................... II 

The company plans to import the 

listed controlled substances for the 

manufacture of reference standards. 

No comments or objections have been 

received. DEA has considered the 

factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a) 

and determined that the registration of 

Applied Science Labs, Inc. to import the 

basic classes of controlled substances is 

consistent with the public interest and 

with United States obligations under 

international treaties, conventions, or 

protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at 

this time. DEA has investigated Applied 

Science Labs, Inc. to ensure that the 

company’s registration is consistent 

with the public interest. The 

investigation has included inspection 

and testing of the company’s physical 

security systems, verification of the 

company’s compliance with state and 

local laws, and a review of the 

company’s background and history. 

Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) 

and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 

CFR 1301.34, the above named company 

is granted registration as an importer of 

the basic class of controlled substance 

listed.

Dated: December 21, 2004. 

William J. Walker, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 05–58 Filed 1–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Manufacturer of Controlled 

Substances; Notice of Application 

Pursuant to Section 1301.33(a) of Title 

21 of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR), this is notice that on October 28, 

2004, Cambrex Charles City, Inc., 1205 

11th Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616, 

made application by renewal and on 

October 13, 2004 by letter to the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) for 

registration as a bulk manufacturer of 

the basic classes of controlled 

substances listed:

Drug Schedule 

Amphetamine (1100) ...................... II 

Methylphenidate (1724) ................. II 

Dextropropoxyphene (9273) .......... II 

Fentanyl (9801) .............................. II 

The company plans to manufacture 

the listed controlled substances in bulk 

for distribution to its customers. 

Any other such applicant and any 

person who is presently registered with 

DEA to manufacture such a substance 

may file comments or objections to the 

issuance of the proposed registration 

pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.33(a). 

Any such comments or objections 

may be addressed, in quintuplicate, to 

the Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Office of Diversion Control, Drug 

Enforcement Administration, United 

States Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20537, Attention: 

Federal Register Representative, Office 

of Liaison and Policy (ODLR) and must 

be filed no later than March 7, 2005.

Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 42 / Friday, March 3, 2006 / Notices 10993 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2 Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, 

Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman, and 

Commissioner Daniel R. Pearson dissenting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Project Leader: Jackie W. Jones (202–

205–3466, jackie.jones@usitc.gov). 

Deputy Project Leader: Heidi ColbyOizumi (202–205–3391, 

heidi.colby@usitc.gov). 

Industry-specific information may be 

obtained from the above persons. For 

more information on legal aspects of the 

investigation, contact William Gearhart 

of the Commission’s Office of the 

General Counsel at 202–205–3091 or 

william.gearhart@usitc.gov. The media 

should contact Margaret O’Laughlin, 

Office of External Relations at 202–205–

1819 or margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov. 

Hearing impaired individuals are 

advised that information on this matter 

can be obtained by contacting the TDD 

terminal on 202–205–1810. General 

information concerning the Commission 

may also be obtained by accessing its 

internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). 

The public record for these 

investigations may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS–

ONLINE) at http://edis.usitc.gov/ 

hvwebex. 

Written submissions: Because of time 

constraints, the Commission will not 

hold public hearings in connection with 

the advice provided under this 

investigation number. However, 

interested persons are invited to submit 

written statements containing data and 

other information concerning the 

matters to be addressed by the 

Commission. All submissions should be 

addressed to the Secretary, United 

States International Trade Commission, 

500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436, and should be received no later 

than the close of business (5:15 p.m. 

EST) on the date stated in the 

notification letter of each review of a 

petition. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of § 201.8 

of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 

201.8 of the rules requires that a signed 

original (or a copy designated as an 

original) and three (3) copies of each 

document be filed. In the event that 

confidential treatment of the document 

is requested, at least two (2) additional 

copies must be filed, in which the 

confidential business information must 

be deleted (see the following paragraph 

for further information regarding 

confidential business information). The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the rules (see Handbook for Electronic 

Filing Procedures, ftp://ftp.usitc.gov/ 

pub/reports/electronic_filing_handbook. 

Persons with questions regarding 

electronic filing should contact the 

Office of the Secretary (202–205–2000 

or edis@usitc.gov). 

Any submissions that contain 

confidential business information must 

also conform with the requirements of 

section 201.6 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 

201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules 

requires that the cover of the document 

and the individual pages be clearly 

marked as to whether they are the 

‘‘confidential’’ or ‘‘non-confidential’’

version, and that the confidential 

business information be clearly 

identified by means of brackets. All 

written submissions, except for 

confidential business information, will 

be made available in the Office of the 

Secretary to the Commission for 

inspection by interested parties. Some 

or all of the confidential business 

information provided may be included 

in the reviews that the Commission 

sends to the USTR. The Commission 

plans to publish a public version of each 

review shortly after a review is sent to 

the USTR. However, in the public 

version the Commission will not 

publish confidential business 

information in a manner that would 

reveal the operations of the firm 

supplying the information. 

Persons with mobility impairments 

who will need special assistance in 

gaining access to the Commission 

should contact the Secretary at 202–

205–2000. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 28, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–3082 Filed 3–2–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1089 (Final)] 

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil 

Determination 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in the subject investigation, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(Commission) determines,2 pursuant to 

section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured by reason of imports 

from Brazil of certain orange juice, 

provided for in subheading 2009.11.00, 

2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 

of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 

the United States, that have been found 

by the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) to be sold in the United 

States at less than fair value (LTFV). The 

Commission makes a negative finding 

with regard to critical circumstances. 

Background 

The Commission instituted this 

investigation effective December 27, 

2004, following receipt of a petition 

filed with the Commission and 

Commerce by Florida Citrus Mutual, 

Lakeland, FL; A. Duda & Sons, Inc., 

Ovieda, FL; Citrus World, Inc., Lake 

Wales, FL; and Southern Garden Citrus 

Processing Corp., Clewiston, FL. The 

final phase of the investigation was 

scheduled by the Commission following 

notification of a preliminary 

determination by Commerce that 

imports of certain orange juice from 

Brazil were being sold at LTFV within 

the meaning of section 733(b) of the Act 

(19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the 

scheduling of the final phase of the 

Commission’s investigation and of a 

public hearing to be held in connection 

therewith was given by posting copies 

of the notice in the Office of the 

Secretary, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, Washington, DC, and by 

publishing the notice in the Federal 

Register of September 7, 2005 (70 FR 

53251). The hearing was held in 

Washington, DC, on January 10, 2006, 

and all persons who requested the 

opportunity were permitted to appear in 

person or by counsel. 

The Commission transmitted its 

determination in this investigation to 

the Secretary of Commerce on February 

27, 2006. The views of the Commission 

are contained in USITC Publication 

3838 (February 2006), entitled Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil: Investigation 

No. 731–TA–1089 (Final). 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: February 28, 2006. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E6–3085 Filed 3–2–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[USITC SE–06–016] 

Sunshine Act Meeting 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: 

International Trade Commission. 

TIME AND DATE: March 14, 2006 at 1 p.m. 


wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices 12183 

submission of rebuttal briefs. Parties 

will be notified of the time and location. 

The Department will publish the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any case or rebuttal 

brief, no later than 120 days after 

publication of these preliminary results, 

unless extended. See § 351.213(h) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under section 351.402(f) 

of the Department’s regulations 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 issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: March 2, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E6–3358 Filed 3–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A 351–840) 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Jill Pollack, 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) 482–3874 or (202) 482–

4593, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Scope of 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 

(Cargill), Coinbra–Frutesp S.A. 

(Coinbra–Frutesp), Sucocitrico Cutrale, 

S.A. (Cutrale), Fischer S/A - 

Agroindustria (Fischer), and 

Montecitrus Trading S.A. (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 

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 this 

order is dispositive. 

Antidumping Duty Order 

On February 27, 2006, the 

International Trade Commission (the 

ITC) notified the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) of its final 

determination pursuant to section 

735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 

as amended (the Act), that the industry 

in the United States producing certain 

orange juice is materially injured by 

reason of less–than-fair–value imports 

of subject merchandise from Brazil. In 

addition, the ITC notified the 

Department of its final determination 

that critical circumstances do not exist 

with respect to imports of subject 

merchandise from Brazil that are subject 

to the Department’s partial affirmative 

critical circumstances finding. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will 

direct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further 

advice by the Department, antidumping 

duties equal to the amount by which the 

normal value of the merchandise 

exceeds the U.S. price of the 

merchandise for all relevant entries of 

certain orange juice from Brazil. These 

antidumping duties will be assessed on 

all unliquidated entries of certain 

orange juice from Brazil entered, or 

withdrawn from the warehouse, for 

consumption on or after August 24, 

2005, the date on which the Department 

published its Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination: Certain Orange Juice 

from Brazil, 70 FR 49557 (Aug. 24, 

2005). With regard to the ITC negative 

critical circumstances determination, 

we will instruct CBP to lift suspension 

and to release any bond or other 

security, and refund any cash deposit 

made, to secure the payment of 

antidumping duties with respect to 

entries of the merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after May 26, 2005 

(i.e., 90 days prior to the date of 

publication of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register), 

but before August 24, 2005. 

Section 733(d) of the Act states that 

instructions issued pursuant to an 

affirmative preliminary determination 

may not remain in effect for more than 

four months except where exporters 

representing a significant proportion of 

exports of the subject merchandise 

extend that four-month period to not 

more than six months. In this 

investigation, the six-month period 

beginning on the date of the publication 

of the preliminary determination ended 

on February 19, 2006. Furthermore, 

section 737 of the Act states that 

definitive duties are to begin on the date 

of publication of the ITC’s final injury 

determination. Therefore, in accordance 

with section 733(d) of the Act and our 

practice, we instructed CBP to terminate 

the suspension of liquidation and to 

liquidate, without regard to 

antidumping duties, unliquidated 

entries of certain orange juice from 

Brazil entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

February 19, 2006, and before the date 

of publication of the ITC’s final injury 

determination in the Federal Register. 

See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Color Television Receivers From the 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
12184 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 46 / Thursday, March 9, 2006 / Notices 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 31347 

(June 3, 2004). Suspension of 

liquidation will continue on or after this 

date. 

On or after the date of publication of 

the ITC’s notice of final determination 

in the Federal Register, CBP will 

require, at the same time as importers 

would normally deposit estimated 

duties on this merchandise, cash 

deposits for the subject merchandise 

equal to the estimated weighted–average 

antidumping duty margins listed below. 

We will also instruct CBP that, for NFC, 

the ‘‘All Others’’ rate applies to all 

companies not specifically named 

below. However, for FCOJM, the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate only applies to FCOJM 

produced and/or exported by Cargill 

and Coinbra–Frutesp. 

Manufacturer/Exporter 

Weighted–

Average 

Margin 

(percent) 

Fischer S/A – Agroindustria ....... 12.46 

Montecitrus Trading S.A. ............ 60.29 

Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. ............ 19.19 

All Others .................................... 16.51 

This notice constitutes the antidumping 

duty order with respect to certain 

orange juice from Brazil, pursuant to 

section 736(a) of the Act. Interested 

parties may contact the Department’s 

Central Records Unit, Room B–099 of 

the main Commerce building, for copies 

of an updated list of antidumping duty 

orders currently in effect. 

This order is published in accordance 

with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.211. 

Dated: February 28, 2006. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E6–3364 Filed 3–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 013006B] 

International Whaling Commission; 

58th Annual Meeting; Nominations 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Extension of request for 

nominations. 

SUMMARY: This notice is to extend the 

call for nominees for the U.S. Delegation 

to the June 2006 International Whaling 

Commission (IWC) annual meeting. A 

request for nominations was previously 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 13, 2006. 

DATES: All written nominations for the 

U.S. Delegation to the IWC annual 

meeting must be received by April 7, 

2006. 

ADDRESSES: All nominations for the U.S. 

Delegation to the IWC annual meeting 

should be addressed to Bill Hogarth, 

U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, and sent 

via post to: Cheri McCarty, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of 

International Affairs, 1315 East West 

Highway, SSMC3 Room 12603, Silver 

Spring, MD 20910. Prospective 

Congressional advisors to the delegation 

should contact the Department of State 

directly. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cheri McCarty, 301–713–9090, ext. 183. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Secretary of Commerce is charged with 

the responsibility of discharging the 

obligations of the United States under 

the International Convention for the 

Regulation of Whaling, 1946. The U.S. 

Commissioner has primary 

responsibility for the preparation and 

negotiation of U.S. positions on 

international issues concerning whaling 

and for all matters involving the IWC. 

He is staffed by the Department of 

Commerce and assisted by the 

Department of State, the Department of 

the Interior, the Marine Mammal 

Commission, and by other agencies. The 

non-federal representative(s) selected as 

a result of this nomination process 

is(are) responsible for providing input 

and recommendations to the U.S. IWC 

Commissioner representing the 

positions of non-governmental 

organizations. Generally, only one nongovernmental position is selected for the 

U.S. Delegation. 

The IWC is hosting its 58th annual 

meeting from June 16–20, 2006, in St. 

Kitts & Nevis. 

Dated: March 6, 2006. 

William T. Hogarth, 

Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–2253 Filed 3–6–06; 3:18 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D. 030306C] 

Endangered Species; File No. 1506 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for 

permit modification. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Dr. 

Blair E. Witherington, Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission, Fish 

and Wildlife Research Institute, 

Melbourne Beach Field Laboratory, 

9700 South A1A, Melbourne Beach, 

Florida 32951, has requested a 

modification to scientific research 

Permit No. 1506. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

April 10, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: The modification request 

and related documents are available for 

review upon written request or by 

appointment in the following office(s): 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

301–713–2289; fax 301–427–2521; and 

Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Ave South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; 

phone 727–824–5312; fax 727-824-5309. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this request should be 

submitted to the Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those 

individuals requesting a hearing should 

set forth the specific reasons why a 

hearing on this particular modification 

request would be appropriate. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile at 301–427–2521, provided the 

facsimile is confirmed by hard copy 

submitted by mail and postmarked no 

later than the closing date of the 

comment period. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

e-mail. The mailbox address for 

providing email comments is 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the following document 

identifier: File No. 1506. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Amy Hapeman or Patrick Opay, 301–

713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject modification to Permit No. 1506, 

issued on March 23, 2005 (70 FR 20530) 

is requested under the authority of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and 

the regulations governing the taking, 

importing, and exporting of endangered 

and threatened species (50 CFR 222- 

226). 

Permit No. 1506 authorizes the permit 

holder to study neonate and juvenile 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
25778 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Notices 

in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 

20436, telephone 202–205–2000. 

Hearing impaired individuals are 

advised that information on this matter 

can be obtained by contacting the 

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server at http:// 

www.usitc.gov. The public record for 

this investigation may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/ 

edis.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vu 

Q. Bui, Esq., Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, telephone (202) 205–2582. 

Authority: The authority for institution of 

this investigation is contained in section 337 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 

in section 210.10 of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 

(2006). 

Scope of Investigation: Having 

considered the amended complaint, the 

U.S. International Trade Commission, 

on April 30, 2007, ordered that—

(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of 

section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, an investigation be instituted 

to determine whether there is a 

violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of 

section 337 in the importation into the 

United States, the sale for importation, 

or the sale within the United States after 

importation of certain GPS devices or 

products containing same by reason of 

infringement of one or more of claims 1 

and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 6,417,801; 

claims 1, 3–5, 8–17, 19–21, and 23 of 

U.S. Patent No. 6,606,346; claims 1–5, 9, 

10, 11–14, 29–31, and 33 of U.S. Patent 

No. 6,651,000; claims 1 and 2 of U.S. 

Patent No. 6,704,651; claims 1 and 9 of 

U.S. Patent No. 6,937,187; and claims 1–

3, 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22–24, 26, 28–31, 

and 33–35 of U.S. Patent No. 7,158,080, 

and whether an industry in the United 

States exists or is in the process of being 

established as required by subsection 

(a)(2) of section 337; 

(2) For the purpose of the 

investigation so instituted, the following 

are hereby named as parties upon which 

this notice of investigation shall be 

served: 

(a) The complainant is—Global 

Locate, Inc., 3190 South Bascom 

Avenue, San Jose, Califonia 95124. 

(b) The respondents are the following 

entities alleged to be in violation of 

section 337, and are the parties upon 

which the complaint is to be served: 

SiRF Technology, Inc., 217 Devcon 

Drive, San Jose, California 95112. 

E–TEN Corp., No. 256, Yangguang 

Street, Neihu Chiu, Taipei, Taiwan 

114, Taiwan. 

Pharos Science & Applications, Inc., 411 

Amapola Avenue, Torrance, 

California 90501. 

MiTAC International Corporation, No. 

200 Wen Hwa 2nd Road, Kuei Shan 

Hsiang, Taoyuan, Taiwan. 

Mio Technology Limited, USA, 47988 

Fremont Boulevard, Fremont, 

California 94538. 

(c) The Commission investigative 

attorney, party to this investigation, is 

Vu Q. Bui, Esq., Office of Unfair Import 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Suite 

401, Washington, DC 20436; and 

(3) For the investigation so instituted, 

the Honorable Robert L. Barton, Jr. is 

designated as the presiding 

administrative law judge. 

Responses to the complaint and the 

notice of investigation must be 

submitted by the named respondents in 

accordance with section 210.13 of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 201.16(d) and 210.13(a), such 

responses will be considered by the 

Commission if received not later than 20 

days after the date of service by the 

Commission of the complaint and the 

notice of investigation. Extensions of 

time for submitting responses to the 

complaint and the notice of 

investigation will not be granted unless 

good cause therefor is shown. 

Failure of a respondent to file a timely 

response to each allegation in the 

complaint and in this notice may be 

deemed to constitute a waiver of the 

right to appear and contest the 

allegations of the complaint and this 

notice, and to authorize the 

administrative law judge and the 

Commission, without further notice to 

the respondent, to find the facts to be as 

alleged in the complaint and this notice 

and to enter an initial determination 

and a final determination containing 

such findings, and may result in the 

issuance of a limited exclusion order or 

cease and desist order or both directed 

against the respondent. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: April 30, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–8624 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1089 (Final) 

(Remand)] 

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of remand proceedings. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) hereby 

gives notice of the court-ordered remand 

of its determination in the antidumping 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1089 

concerning certain orange juice from 

Brazil. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this 

proceeding and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subpart A (19 CFR 

part 207). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Debra Baker, Office of Investigations, 

telephone 202–205–3180, or David 

Goldfine, Office of General Counsel, 

telephone 202–708–5452, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record of 

Investigation No. 731–TA–1088 may be 

viewed on the Commission’s electronic 

docket (‘‘EDIS’’) at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. In March 2006, the 

Commission determined that an 

industry in the United States was 

materially injured by reason of imports 

of certain orange juice from Brazil that 

were allegedly sold in the United States 

at less than fair value. The 

Commission’s determination was 

appealed to the U.S. Court of 

International Trade, which issued an 

opinion in the matter on April 12, 2007. 

See Tropicana Products, Inc. v. United 

States, Slip Op. 07–55 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

April 12, 2007). In its opinion, the U.S. 

Court of International Trade remanded 

the matter to the Commission for further 

proceedings not inconsistent with that 

opinion. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 87 / Monday, May 7, 2007 / Notices 25779 

Participation in the proceeding. Only 

those persons who were interested 

parties to the original investigation (i.e., 

persons listed on the Commission 

Secretary’s service list) and were parties 

to the appeal may participate in the 

remand proceeding. Such persons need 

not make any additional appearance 

filings with the Commission to 

participate in the remand proceeding. 

Business proprietary information 

(‘‘BPI’’) referred to during the remand 

proceeding will be governed, as 

appropriate, by the administrative 

protective order issued in the original 

investigation. 

Written submissions. The Commission 

is reopening the record for the limited 

purpose of collecting data pertinent to 

its analysis called for under Bratsk 

Aluminum Smelter v. United States, 444 

F.3d 1369 and 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In 

addition, the Commission will permit 

the parties to file comments pertaining 

to the inquiries that are the subject of 

the CIT’s remand instructions, but no 

new factual information may be 

submitted with these comments. 

Comments should be limited to no more 

than twenty (20) double-spaced and 

single-sided pages of textual material. 

The parties may not submit any new 

factual information and may not address 

any issue other than the inquiries that 

are the subject of the CIT’s remand 

instructions. Any such comments must 

be filed with the Commission no later 

than May 31, 2007. 

All written submissions must conform 

with the provisions of section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules; any 

submissions that contain BPI must also 

conform with the requirements of 

sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the 

Commission’s rules. The Commission’s 

rules do not authorize filing of 

submissions with the Secretary by 

facsimile or electronic means, except to 

the extent permitted by section 201.8 of 

the Commission’s rules, as amended, 67 

FR 68036 (Nov. 8, 2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigation must be served on all other 

parties to the investigation (as identified 

by either the public or BPI service list), 

and a certificate of service must be 

timely filed. The Secretary will not 

accept a document for filing without a 

certificate of service. 

Parties are also advised to consult 

with the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure, part 201, subparts A 

through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 

207, subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for 

provisions of general applicability 

concerning written submissions to the 

Commission. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: May 1, 2007. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E7–8615 Filed 5–4–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 
 
B-1

APPENDIX B

Excerpts from Tropicana Products, Inc. v. United States

Slip Op. 07-55, CIT 2007
 
SLIP OP. 07-55

UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE

 

:

TROPICANA PRODUCTS, INC., :

:

Plaintiff, :

:

and :

:

LOUIS DREYFUS CITRUS, INC., and :

FISCHER S/A AGROINDUSTRIA, :

:

Plaintiff-Intervenors, :

:

v. :

: Before: Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge

:

UNITED STATES, : Court No. 06-00109

:

Defendant, : Public Version

:

and :

:

A. DUDA & SONS, INC., CITRUS :

WORLD, INC., FLORIDA CITRUS MUTUAL, :

SOUTHERN GARDEN CITRUS :

PROCESSING CORP., and THE COCA-COLA :

COMPANY, :

:

Defendant-Intervenors. :

 :

OPINION

[The International Trade Commission’s affirmative determination of material injury by reason of

imports of certain orange juice from Brazil REMANDED.]

Dated: April 12, 2007

Neville Peterson, LLP (John M. Peterson, Catherine C. Chen, and George W. Thompson)

for the plaintiff.

Vinson & Elkins, LLP (Christopher A. Dunn and Valerie S. Ellis) for the plaintiff-
COURT NO. 06-00109 PAGE 42

Brazilian imports in order to use the duty drawbacks from Brazilian imports to offset the higher

prices of their juice. Final Determination, at 20 n.142. While the duty drawback program does

help facilitate U.S. exports, the Commission found that the domestic industry did not need

Brazilian imports in order to export its own like product. Id. at 19–20. The Commission found

that the fact that the value of drawback credits available significantly exceeded the value of

domestic exports demonstrated that there is little correlation between U.S. exports and the

availability of drawback credits. Id. at 19–20, 20 n.142. The court agrees that the record supports

the conclusion that, although duty drawbacks help facilitate U.S. exports, duty drawbacks are not

a major factor in spurring U.S. exports. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court remands the affirmative determination to the

Commission. As previously discussed, the Commission’s inventory analysis is seriously flawed

for failure to consider, among other factors, the residual demand, the inverse correlation between

inventory levels of subject imports and domestic production, and the domestic industry’s

voluntary maintenance of high inventories. Thus, upon remand, the Commission must examine

the full effects of a shortage in the supply of domestic round oranges, and how that affects the

Commission’s volume and price effects analysis. Additionally, the Commission must examine:

the opposition to the petition by a large portion of the domestic industry; whether, if prices were

adjusted to account for the LTFV margin, non-subject imports would displace subject imports;

and its price suppression analysis.

Further, although the Commission’s determinations as to the collection of data, the

lack of consideration of ULPOJ imports, and the role of blending are not erroneous when viewed
COURT NO. 06-00109 PAGE 43

in isolation, the weakness of the overall analysis and the relatedness of the issues may cause these

matters to be significant in the context of a more comprehensive analysis. Given the relatedness

of the issues, upon remand, the Commission must not only examine the four deficiencies noted

above but must also consider the totality of the evidence anew. In so doing, the Commission must

not seize upon bits of evidence to reject what the bulk of the evidence dictates. Additionally,

while the court understands that the dissent is not under direct assault here, the dissent’s finding of

no causation appears to be more logical and supported than the Commission’s finding of

causation. It would be helpful upon remand for the Commission to engage the dissent. 

The Commission’s present determination acknowledges that weather and disease

caused an increase in the demand for imports but does not offer sufficient evidentiary support, or

adequate explanation, for its findings that subject imports were greater than necessary to meet that

demand and that the inventory levels of these subject imports over the course of the POI

prevented price increases that otherwise would have occurred. In a volatile supply condition,

which the Commission acknowledges, not the least by the breadth of the POI here, significant

inventory is necessary. If inventory is the key, it needs an in-depth analysis. 

If it finds it necessary or efficacious, the Commission may reopen the record. The

Commission should render a determination upon remand within 75 days hereof. Objections may

be filed 20 days thereafter. Response may be filed within 11 days.

 /s/ Jane A. Restani 

Jane A. Restani

Chief Judge

Dated this 12th day of April, 2007.

New York, New York. 
 
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA
 
Table C-3

Certain orange juice: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, crop years 2001/02 - 2004/05

(Quantity=1,000 gallons, value=1,000 dollars, unit values are per gallon; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Crop years 2001/02 - 2001/02 - 2002/03 - 2003/04 -

Item 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2004/05 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Total available supply:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,450,121 1,426,553 1,436,664 1,500,670 3.5 -1.6 0.7 4.5

 Domestic share (1) . . . . . . . . . . 87.2 79.9 84.8 76.5 -10.7 -7.3 4.9 -8.3

 Importers' share (1):

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.6 15.9 10.7 15.4 7.9 8.4 -5.2 4.7

 Belize. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.6 1.4 2.0 1.8 0.3 0.8 0.6

 Costa Rica. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.0 0.3 0.4 0.2 -0.3

 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 0.9 0.6 3.7 0.8 -1.9 -0.4 3.1

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 -0.1 0.2 -0.4 0.1

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8 20.1 15.2 23.5 10.7 7.3 -4.9 8.3

U.S. imports from:

 Brazil:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,728 227,280 154,203 231,711 111.2 107.1 -32.2 50.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,162 242,259 142,702 232,481 134.4 144.3 -41.1 62.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.90 $1.07 $0.93 $1.00 11.0 17.9 -13.2 8.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 33,791 41,795 26,633 51,312 51.9 23.7 -36.3 92.7

 Belize:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,822 8,123 20,205 30,366 694.5 112.5 148.7 50.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,747 11,486 10,602 18,484 34.5 -16.4 -7.7 74.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.60 $1.41 $0.52 $0.61 -83.1 -60.7 -62.9 16.0

 Costa Rica:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,054 28,755 32,020 29,658 23.3 19.5 11.4 -7.4

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,960 38,397 30,781 31,411 -17.3 1.1 -19.8 2.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.58 $1.34 $0.96 $1.06 -32.9 -15.4 -28.0 10.2

 Mexico:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,358 13,467 8,209 54,822 32.6 -67.4 -39.0 567.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43,486 16,591 8,339 53,106 22.1 -61.8 -49.7 536.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.05 $1.23 $1.02 $0.97 -7.9 17.2 -17.5 -4.6

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,325 9,244 3,733 5,586 -11.7 46.1 -59.6 49.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,908 10,020 3,925 6,191 -21.7 26.7 -60.8 57.7

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.25 $1.08 $1.05 $1.11 -11.4 -13.3 -3.0 5.4

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,287 286,869 218,370 352,143 90.1 54.8 -23.9 61.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202,265 318,753 196,350 341,672 68.9 57.6 -38.4 74.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.09 $1.11 $0.90 $0.97 -11.1 1.8 -19.1 7.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 35,484 41,834 26,642 54,749 54.3 17.9 -36.3 105.5

U.S. domestic shipment quantity . 1,264,833 1,139,684 1,218,294 1,148,526 -9.2 -9.9 6.9 -5.7

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Crop years 2001/02 - 2001/02 - 2002/03 - 2003/04 -

Item 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2004/05 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

U.S. processors':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 1,645,640 1,645,641 1,690,640 1,690,640 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.0

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 1,405,537 1,226,103 1,465,341 965,406 -31.3 -12.8 19.5 -34.1

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 85.4 74.5 86.7 57.1 -28.3 -10.9 12.2 -29.6

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,338,675 1,194,489 1,348,799 1,048,643 -21.7 -10.8 12.9 -22.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,331,416 1,247,495 1,321,088 1,103,316 -17.1 -6.3 5.9 -16.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.20 $1.26 $1.16 $1.23 2.1 4.8 -8.2 6.1

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118,103 50,758 74,307 61,466 -48.0 -57.0 46.4 -17.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132,123 57,672 71,151 56,598 -57.2 -56.3 23.4 -20.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.12 $1.14 $0.96 $0.92 -17.7 1.6 -15.7 -3.8

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 423,741 439,812 540,384 415,181 -2.0 3.8 22.9 -23.2

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . 29.1 35.3 38.0 37.4 8.3 6.2 2.7 -0.6

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 3,445 3,445 3,542 3,040 -11.8 0.0 2.8 -14.2

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 9,098 8,263 8,478 7,263 -20.2 -9.2 2.6 -14.3

 Wages paid ($1,000) . . . . . . . . . 118,500 117,708 122,723 113,485 -4.2 -0.7 4.3 -7.5

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13.02 $14.25 $14.48 $15.63 20.0 9.4 1.6 7.9

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . 153.6 145.5 172.9 129.5 -15.7 -5.2 18.8 -25.1

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.08 $0.10 $0.08 $0.12 42.2 15.4 -14.4 44.1

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Increase greater than 1,000 percent.

Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires and from offical USDA and Commerce statistics.

C-3
 
D-1

APPENDIX D

DATA ON U.S. IMPORTS OF FCOJM AND NFCOJ
 
D-3

Table D-1

Certain orange juice: U.S. imports by source and by type of product, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Source

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE)

FCOJM:

Brazil (subject) 104,857 206,064 142,418 209,620

Mexico 38,964 12,667 7,093 51,871

Belize 3,822 8,123 20,205 30,366

Costa Rica 24,054 28,755 32,020 29,658

Honduras 4,462 1,238 1,669 2,182

Dominican Republic 768 894 430 1,120

South Africa 536 5,737 237 1,006

All others 533 1,294 949 1,005

Subtotal, nonsubject 73,140 58,708 62,603 117,209

Total 177,997 264,772 205,021 326,829

NFCOJ:

Brazil (subject) 4,871 21,216 11,785 22,091

Mexico 2,394 800 1,117 2,951

Belize 0 0 0 0

Costa Rica 0 0 0 0

Honduras 0 0 0 0

Dominican Republic 2 0 387 207

South Africa 0 0 0 0

All others 24 81 61 65

Subtotal, nonsubject 2,419 881 1,564 3,223

Total 7,291 22,097 13,349 25,314

Value1

 (1,000 dollars)

FCOJM:

Brazil (subject) 90,340 205,709 127,358 199,970

Mexico 40,201 15,089 6,490 48,380

Belize 13,747 11,486 10,602 18,484

Costa Rica 37,960 38,397 30,781 31,411

Honduras 5,526 1,722 1,534 2,591

Dominican Republic 674 836 406 1,070

South Africa 581 5,655 211 889

All others 1,042 1,575 1,072 1,195

Subtotal, nonsubject 99,732 74,759 51,097 104,020

Total 190,073 280,468 178,455 303,990

NFCOJ:

Brazil (subject) 8,822 36,550 15,344 32,510

Mexico 3,285 1,503 1,850 4,725

Belize 0 0 0 0

Costa Rica 0 0 0 0

Honduras 0 0 0 0

Dominican Republic 7 0 544 280

South Africa 0 0 0 0

All others 78 232 157 167

Subtotal, nonsubject 3,370 1,734 2,551 5,172

Total 12,192 38,285 17,895 37,682

Table continued on next page.
D-4

Table D-1--Continued

Certain orange juice: U.S. imports by source and by type of product, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Source

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Unit value (per gallon)

FCOJM:

Brazil (subject) 0.86 1.00 0.89 0.95

Mexico 1.03 1.19 0.91 0.93

Belize 3.60 1.41 0.52 0.61

Costa Rica 1.58 1.34 0.96 1.06

Honduras 1.24 1.39 0.92 1.19

Dominican Republic 0.88 0.94 0.95 0.95

South Africa 1.08 0.99 0.89 0.88

All others 1.95 1.22 1.13 1.19

Subtotal, nonsubject 1.36 1.27 0.82 0.89

Total 1.07 1.06 0.87 0.93

NFCOJ:

Brazil (subject) 1.81 1.72 1.30 1.47

Mexico 1.37 1.88 1.66 1.60

Belize ----- ----- ----- -----

Costa Rica ----- ----- ----- -----

Honduras ----- ----- ----- -----

Dominican Republic 3.50 ----- 1.41 1.35

South Africa ----- ----- ----- -----

All others 3.29 2.88 2.59 2.57

Subtotal, nonsubject 1.39 1.97 1.63 1.60

Total 1.67 1.73 1.34 1.49

Share of quantity (percent)

FCOJM:

Brazil (subject) 58.9 77.8 69.5 64.1

Mexico 21.9 4.8 3.5 15.9

Belize 2.1 3.1 9.9 9.3

Costa Rica 13.5 10.9 15.6 9.1

Honduras 2.5 0.5 0.8 0.7

Dominican Republic 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3

South Africa 0.3 2.2 0.1 0.3

All others 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3

Subtotal, nonsubject 41.1 22.2 30.5 35.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NFCOJ:

Brazil (subject) 66.8 96.0 88.3 87.3

Mexico 32.8 3.6 8.4 11.7

Belize 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Costa Rica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Honduras 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dominican Republic 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.8

South Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All others 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3

Subtotal, nonsubject 33.2 4.0 11.7 12.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table continued on next page.
D-5

Table D-1--Continued

Certain orange juice: U.S. imports by source and by type of product, crop years 2001/02-2004/05

Source

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Share of value (percent)

FCOJM:

Brazil (subject) 47.5 73.3 71.4 65.8

Mexico 21.2 5.4 3.6 15.9

Belize 7.2 4.1 5.9 6.1

Costa Rica 20.0 13.7 17.2 10.3

Honduras 2.9 0.6 0.9 0.9

Dominican Republic 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4

South Africa 0.3 2.0 0.1 0.3

All others 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4

Subtotal, nonsubject 52.5 26.7 28.6 34.2

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

NFCOJ:

Brazil (subject) 72.4 95.5 85.7 86.3

Mexico 26.9 3.9 10.3 12.5

Belize 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Costa Rica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Honduras 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dominican Republic 0.1 0.0 3.0 0.7

South Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All others 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.4

Subtotal, nonsubject 27.6 4.5 14.3 13.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note1.–Crop years are October - September.

Note2.–Conversion factor: 1 liter = 0.2642 gallons.

 1

 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce import statistics using HTS numbers 2009.11.0060, 2009.19.2500, and 2009.12.2500
D-6

Table D-2

Certain orange juice: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, by type of product, crop years 2001/02-

2004/05

Source

Crop year

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05

Quantity (1,000 gallons SSE)

FCOJM:

 Beginning stocks 470,985 466,736 475,061 567,867

U.S. production 877,816 654,031 881,885 382,836

Minus: U.S. exports 121,753 37,389 56,847 43,051

 Minus: Ending stocks 466,736 475,061 567,867 397,846

Total domestic shipments 760,312 608,317 732,232 509,807

Apparent consumption 938,309 873,089 937,253 836,636

NFCOJ:

 Beginning stocks 227,479 225,427 229,448 274,272

U.S. production 554,346 592,730 589,449 623,806

Minus: U.S. exports 51,877 57,342 58,563 67,204

 Minus: Ending stocks 225,427 229,448 274,272 192,154

Total domestic shipments 504,521 531,368 486,062 638,720

Apparent consumption 511,812 553,464 499,411 664,034

Share of quantity (percent)

FCOJM:

U.S. producers’ shipments 81.0 69.7 78.1 60.9

U.S. imports from--

Brazil (subject) 11.2 23.6 15.2 25.1

Mexico 4.2 1.5 0.8 6.2

Belize 0.4 0.9 2.2 3.6

Costa Rica 2.6 3.3 3.4 3.5

Honduras 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.3

Dominican Republic 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1

South Africa 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.1

All others 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Subtotal, nonsubject 7.8 6.7 6.7 14.0

Total 19.0 30.3 21.9 39.1

NFCOJ:

U.S. producers’ shipments 98.6 96.0 97.3 96.2

U.S. imports from--

Brazil (subject) 1.0 3.8 2.4 3.3

Mexico 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.4

Belize 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Costa Rica 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Honduras 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Dominican Republic 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0

South Africa 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

All others 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Subtotal, nonsubject 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5

Total 1.4 4.0 2.7 3.8

Source: Compiled from table D-1 of this report and table IV-5 of the final staff report (INV-DD-010). 
E-1

APPENDIX E

DATA SUBMITTED BY FOREIGN PRODUCERS

IN NONSUBJECT COUNTRIES

 1

 ***.

 2

 Del Oro indicated that its exports to the United States were not subject to tariff barriers due to the Caribbean

Basin Initiative and that there is similar access to the European market. 

 3

 Citrofrut did not provide any information on the structure of its firm operations in its response to the

Commission questionnaire. With respect to Procimart, approximately *** percent of its total sales in 2004 was

represented by sales of the subject merchandise. Citrofrut’s and Procimart’s foreign producer questionnaire

responses.

E-3

DATA SUBMITTED ON THE ORANGE JUICE INDUSTRY IN COSTA RICA

Del Oro S.A. (“Del Oro”), a producer of orange juice in Costa Rica, provided certain data to the

Commission (table E-1).1

 The *** of the orange juice processed by Del Oro is shipped to the United

States although the firm also maintains home market customers and ships to other regions (*** to

Europe).2

 Reported capacity utilization fell from over *** percent in 2002 and 2003 to slightly over ***

percent in 2004 and January-September 2005. Del Oro indicated in a cover letter to the submitted data

that it made a “***” in processing capacity in 2003.

Table E-1

Orange juice (nonsubject production in Costa Rica): Del Oro production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, 2002-04, January-September 2004 and 2005, and projected 2005-06

* * * * * * *

DATA SUBMITTED ON THE ORANGE JUICE INDUSTRY IN MEXICO

Citrofrut S.A. de C.V. (“Citrofrut”) and Procimart S.A. de C.V. (“Procimart”) returned

questionnaires on their operations in Mexico.3

 The below tabulation presents production, on a firm basis,

for Citrofrut and Procimart, as well as industry-wide figures for Mexico compiled by PSD Online

(previously presented in SSE gallons in tables I-10 and I-11):

Source

Time period1

2002 2003 2004 2005

Production quantity (1,000 pounds solids equivalent)

Citrofrut *** *** *** ***

Procimart *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** ***

PSD Online 46,453 10,930 27,461 101,240

Percent

Coverage *** *** *** ***

 1 The following time periods are used for Citrofrut and Procimart: full year 2002, full year 2003, full year 2004,

and January-September 2005 (a period which appears to be equivalent to a crop year). The data for PSD Online is

for crop years 2001/02 through 2004/05 (crop/market year period was November-October).

Note.–SSE gallons were converted to pounds solid equivalent using the conversion factor: pound solid equivalent

(PSE) = 1.029 gallons.

Data submitted by Citrofrut indicate that the firm accounted for the *** of orange juice production in

Mexico ***. 
 4

 Procimart’s foreign producer questionnaire response. The firm produces only nonorganic FCOJM. (***.) Ibid. 

 5

 Data for the entire industry (table I-11) likewise shows that home market consumption of orange juice in

Mexico is much lower than country exports.

 6

 Procimart’s foreign producer questionnaire response.

E-4

Combined data for Citrofrut and Procimart on their capacity, production, and shipments of orange

juice are shown in table E-2. Capacity to process orange juice increased by *** percent from 2002 to

2004 and then was *** from January-September 2004 to January-September 2005. Procimart 

began processing oranges in 2004 when it installed *** pounds solids equivalent of capacity.4

 Combined

orange juice production for the two firms fell from 2002 to 2003 and then increased in 2004 and 2005. 

Production was at *** capacity in 2002 and January-September 2005 but was *** lower in 2003 and

2004. Citrofrut and Procimart reported a combined capacity utilization figure of *** percent in JanuarySeptember 2005 (table E-2).

Table E-2

Certain orange juice (nonsubject production in Mexico): Production capacity, production,

shipments, and inventories, 2002-04, January-September 2004 and 2005

* * * * * * *

The *** of the orange juice processed by the reporting firms is exported (table E-2);5

 the *** are

the predominant export destinations. The unit values of exports to the United States were generally ***

than those to other export markets during 2002-04, and *** than exports to the European Union and Asia

during the January-September 2005 period.

*** projected operations in 2005 and 2006 are shown in the following tabulation:

* * * * * * *

As shown, *** producing less orange juice in 2006 than in 2005 resulting in a *** in capacity utilization. 

***.6