20830 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

address, and telephone number; 2) the 

number of participants; and 3) a list of 

the issues to be discussed. At the 

hearing, oral presentations will be 

limited to issues raised in the briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.310(c). Unless the 

Department receives a request for a 

postponement pursuant to section 

735(a)(2) of the Act, the Department will 

make its final determination no later 

than 75 days after the date of this 

preliminary determination. See section 

735(a)(1) of the Act. 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of the 

Department’s preliminary affirmative 

determination. In addition, we are 

making available to the ITC all non–

privileged and non–proprietary 

information relating to this 

investigation. We will allow the ITC 

access to all privileged and business 

proprietary information in our files, 

provided the ITC confirms that it will 

not disclose such information, either 

publicly or under an administrative 

protective order, without the written 

consent of the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration. If the final 

determination in this proceeding is 

affirmative, the ITC will determine 

before the later of 120 days after the date 

of this preliminary determination or 45 

days after the final determination 

whether imports of lemon juice from 

Argentina materially injure, or threaten 

material injury to, the U.S. industry. See 

section 735(b)(2) of the Act. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8015 Filed 4–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–835] 

Notice of Preliminary Determinations 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

of Critical Circumstances in Part: 

Lemon Juice from Mexico 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: We preliminarily determine 

that imports of lemon juice from Mexico 

are being, or are likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, as 

provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended. In addition, we 

preliminarily determine that there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that critical circumstances exist with 

respect to the imports of lemon juice 

from Mexico for one respondent. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. We will make our final 

determination within 75 days after the 

date of this preliminary determination. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

George Callen or Minoo Hatten, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0180 or (202) 482–

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On October 11, 2006, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) initiated 

antidumping investigations of lemon 

juice from Argentina and Mexico. See 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations: Lemon Juice from 

Argentina and Mexico, 71 FR 61710 

(October 19, 2006) (Initiation Notice). 

The Department set aside a period for 

all interested parties to raise issues 

regarding product coverage. The 

Department encouraged all interested 

parties to submit such comments within 

20 days from publication of the 

initiation notice, that is, by November 8, 

2006. See Initiation Notice; see also 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27323 

(May 19,1997) (Final Rule). 

On November 6, 2006, the United 

States International Trade Commission 

(ITC) preliminarily determined that 

there is a reasonable indication that 

imports of lemon juice from Argentina 

and Mexico are materially injuring the 

U.S. industry and the ITC notified the 

Department of its findings. See Lemon 

Juice From Argentina and Mexico, 

Investigation Nos. 731–TA–1105 1106 

(Preliminary), 71 FR 66795 (November 

16, 2006) (ITC Preliminary Report). 

On February 8, 2007, we postponed 

the deadline for the preliminary 

determinations under section 

733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act), by 50 days to April 

19, 2007. See Postponement of 

Preliminary Determinations of 

Antidumping Duty Investigations: 

Lemon Juice from Argentina and 

Mexico, 72 FR 7606 (February 16, 2007). 

On March 30, 2007, Sunkist Growers 

Inc. (the petitioner) alleged that, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.206, 

critical circumstances existed with 

regard to imports of lemon juice from 

Argentina and Mexico. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. 

This period corresponds to the four 

most recent fiscal quarters prior to the 

month of the filing of the petition. 

Scope of Investigation 

The merchandise covered by this 

investigation includes certain lemon 

juice for further manufacture, with or 

without addition of preservatives, sugar, 

or other sweeteners, regardless of the 

GPL (grams per liter of citric acid) level 

of concentration, brix level, brix/acid 

ratio, pulp content, clarity, grade, 

horticulture method (e.g., organic or 

not), processed form (e.g., frozen or not–

from-concentrate), FDA standard of 

identity, the size of the container in 

which packed, or the method of 

packing. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

lemon juice at any level of 

concentration packed in retail–sized 

containers ready for sale to consumers, 

typically at a level of concentration of 

48 GPL; and (2) beverage products such 

as lemonade that typically contain 20% 

or less lemon juice as an ingredient. 

Lemon juice is classifiable under 

subheadings 2009.39.6020, 

2009.31.6020, 2009.31.4000, 

2009.31.6040, and 2009.39.6040 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS). While HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Comments 

In accordance with the preamble to 

our regulations (see Final Rule), we set 

aside a period of time for parties to raise 

issues regarding product coverage in the 

Initiation Notice and encouraged all 

parties to submit comments within 20 

calendar days of publication of the 

Initiation Notice. We did not receive 

comments from any interested parties in 

the Mexico investigation. On November 

1, 2006, we received comments from 

Citromax S.A.C.I. (Citromax), an 

interested party in the Argentina 

investigation. On November 8, 2006, the 

Department received rebuttal comments 

from the petitioner on the Citromax 

submission. As discussed further in the 

March 21, 2007, memorandum entitled 

‘‘Scope Issue in the Antidumping Duty 

Investigations on Lemon Juice from 

Argentina and Mexico’’ on file in Import 

Administration’s Central Records Unit 

(CRU), Room 1870, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20831 

1 In an entry of appearance, dated November 15, 

2006, The Coca-Cola Company and a subsidiary, 

The Coca-Cola Export Corporation, Mexico Branch 

(collectively Coca-Cola), clarified that it, rather than 

Coca-Cola FEMSA, S.A. de C.V., was the foreign 

producer and exporter of the subject merchandise 

under investigation. 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, 

we are continuing to include organic 

lemon juice in the scope of the 

antidumping duty investigations of 

lemon juice from Argentina and Mexico. 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

weighted–average dumping margins for 

each known exporter and producer of 

the subject merchandise. Section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act also gives the 

Department discretion to examine a 

reasonable number of such exporters 

and producers when it is not practicable 

to examine all exporters and producers. 

In order to identify the universe of 

producers/exporters in Mexico to 

investigate for purposes of this less–

than-fair–value investigation on lemon 

juice, we analyzed information from 

various sources, including data from 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP). 

Using information obtained from the 

petition, an internet search, and a 

request to the U.S. Embassy in Mexico 

in addition to CBP statistical 

information on U.S. imports of lemon 

juice during the POI, we identified three 

respondents accounting for 

approximately 95 percent of the POI 

imports from Mexico: Citrofrut Veracruz 

(Citrofrut), Citrotam Internacional S.P.R. 

de R.L. (Citrotam), and Coca–Cola 

FEMSA, S.A. de C.V.1 For a detailed 

analysis of our respondent–selection 

procedure, see ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Investigation on Lemon Juice from 

Mexico Respondent Selection,’’ dated 

November 7, 2006, on file in the CRU. 

Citrofrut 

On November 20, 2006, we issued a 

questionnaire to Citrofrut requesting 

that it respond to section A of the 

questionnaire by December 11, 2006. 

Because Citrofrut did not respond by 

this due date, we sent a letter on 

December 13, 2006, in which we 

informed the company that we had not 

received a response from it despite 

confirmation from FedEx that Citrofrut 

had received the questionnaire. We 

informed Citrofrut further that, if it 

intended to respond to the 

questionnaire, it should do so by 

December 20, 2006. On December 14, 

2006, Citrofrut submitted 

documentation demonstrating that it 

exports lime juice but not lemon juice 

from Mexico to the United States. The 

petitioner did not comment. 

We find that the supporting 

documentation submitted by Citrofrut is 

sufficient to demonstrate its assertion 

that it only exports lime juice. On 

August 6, 2006, before the petition was 

filed, Citrofrut’s broker in the United 

States filed post–summary adjustment 

documents with CBP to address the 

incorrect classification it had used on 

certain entries at the time of entry. We 

have confirmed that CBP has accepted 

the reclassification claim with respect to 

imports from Citrofrut. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that Citrofrut is 

no longer a mandatory respondent in 

the investigation of lemon juice from 

Mexico. If it begins to export lemon 

juice, its exports will be subject to the 

all–others cash–deposit rate. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that the use of adverse facts 

available (AFA) is appropriate for the 

preliminary determination with respect 

to Citrotam. 

A. Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act, significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title, or provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified as provided in 

section 782(i), the administering 

authority shall use, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. Section 782(d) of the Act 

provides that, if the administering 

authority determines that a response to 

a request for information does not 

comply with the request, the 

administering authority shall promptly 

inform the responding party and 

provide an opportunity to remedy the 

deficient submission. Section 782(e) of 

the Act states further that the 

Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

the information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; (5) the 

information can be used without undue 

difficulties. On November 7, 2006, we 

mailed a package to Citrotam via 

Federal Express (FedEx) containing a 

copy of the respondent–selection 

memorandum and a request for model–

match comments. Based on information 

we found on the internet we addressed 

the package to Citrotam’s general 

manager (GM). FedEx reported that it 

was not able to deliver the package to 

Citrotam because it had been told that 

the company had moved from the 

location for which we had provided an 

address. We continued our efforts to 

locate Citrotam, including working with 

the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, as 

well as obtaining contact information 

for Citrotam from the Embassy of 

Mexico in Washington, DC. We obtained 

information indicating that Citrotam is 

out of business and has been replaced 

by a new firm, Productos Naturales de 

Citricos (Pronacit), which may be using 

the former location of Citrotam to do 

business and has the same GM as 

Citrotam. 

On November 21, 2006, after many 

attempts, when we finally contacted the 

GM, he confirmed that the new name for 

Citrotam is Pronacit. He also confirmed 

to the Embassy of Mexico in 

Washington, DC, that Citrotam had 

changed its name to Pronacit. See e–

mail message dated December 12, 2006, 

attached to the Memorandum to the File 

entitled ‘‘Efforts to Contact Citrotam 

Internacional, S.P.R. De R.L.,’’ dated 

February 20, 2007 (Citrotam Memo). As 

discussed in detail in the Citrotam 

Memo, we made additional efforts to 

contact the GM to obtain an address for 

Pronacit. When FedEx was unable to 

deliver the package to the address 

provided by the GM to the Embassy of 

Mexico, we attempted to contact the GM 

again and spoke with the GM’s assistant. 

On January 12, 2007, at the suggestion 

of the GM’s assistant, we sent a letter to 

the assistant’s residence containing 

questions pertaining to successor–ininterest status, as well as our 

antidumping duty questionnaire and 

other documents requesting that 

Citrotam/Pronacit respond by January 

26, 2007. We confirmed that the package 

was delivered to the assistant’s 

residence on January 16, 2007. We have 

received no response. See Citrotam 

Memo. 

Citrotam/Pronacit failed to respond to 

our detailed requests for information 

regarding successorship. Pursuant to 

section 776(a) of the Act, we find that 

Citrotam/Pronacit withheld information 

that we requested, failed to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

the submission of the information or in 

the form and manner requested, subject 

to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 

782, and significantly impeded a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
20832 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

proceeding under this title. Therefore, 

we are resorting to the use the facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. We 

preliminarily find that the facts 

available, including statements from the 

GM, U.S. Embassy officials in Mexico, 

and Embassy of Mexico officials, 

support the conclusion that Pronacit is 

the successor to Citrotam. Moreover, 

because Citrotam/Pronacit failed to 

respond to any of our requests for 

information, we are relying on facts 

otherwise available to assign a dumping 

margin to Citrotam/Pronacit. 

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

In selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, section 776(b) of 

the Act provides that, if the 

administering authority finds that an 

interested party has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information 

from the administering authority, in 

reaching the applicable determination 

under this title, the administering 

authority may use an inference adverse 

to the interests of that party in selecting 

from among the facts otherwise 

available. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Certain Circular 

Welded Carbon–Quality Line Pipe From 

Mexico, 69 FR 59892 (October 6, 2004); 

see also Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Prestressed 

Concrete Steel Wire Strand From 

Mexico, 68 FR 42378 (July 17, 2003). 

Adverse inferences are appropriate 

‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H. Doc. No. 

103–316, at 870 (1994) (SAA). 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith, or willfulness, on the part of 

a respondent is not required before the 

Department may make an adverse 

inference.’’ See Final Rule. 

Because we have preliminarily 

determined under section 776(a) of the 

Act that Pronacit is the successor to 

Citrotam and because, in refusing to 

respond to our requests for information, 

Citrotam/Pronacit has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability, we 

find that the application of an AFA rate 

for Citrotam/Pronacit is warranted in 

this preliminary determination. 

The Department finds that Citrotam/ 

Pronacit failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability because it continued to be 

non–responsive despite numerous 

attempts to obtain information. See 

Citrotam Memo. Consequently, the 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that, in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available, an 

adverse inference is warranted. See 

section 776(b) of the Act; see also Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 

Stainless Steel Hollow Products from 

Japan, 65 FR 42985 (July 12, 2000), 

where the Department applied total 

AFA because the respondents failed to 

respond to the antidumping 

questionnaire. 

If, however, within 30 days after 

issuance of this preliminary 

determination, Pronacit is able to 

demonstrate on the record of the 

investigation that it is not the successor 

to Citrotam and cooperates fully during 

the remainder of the investigation, the 

Department may reconsider this issue 

for purposes of the final determination. 

C. Selection of Information Used as 

Facts Available 

Where the Department applies AFA 

because a respondent failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information, 

section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from the petition, a final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. See 

also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 

829–831. In this case, because we are 

unable to calculate a margin for 

Citrotam/Pronacit and because an 

adverse inference is warranted, we have 

assigned to Citrotam/Pronacit the 

highest product–specific margin, 205.37 

percent, which we have calculated in 

this investigation based on the data 

reported by a respondent. 

Date of Sale 

Section 351.401(i) of the Department’s 

regulations states that the Department 

will normally use the date of invoice, as 

recorded in the producer’s or exporter’s 

records kept in the ordinary course of 

business, as the date of sale. The 

Department may use a date other than 

the date of invoice if the alternative 

better reflects the date on which the 

material terms of sales (e.g., price and 

quantity) are established. 

Coca–Cola stated in its responses that 

the essential terms of sale did not 

change once it accepted a purchase 

order but indicated that sometimes it 

received the purchase order after 

shipment had occurred. In its U.S. sales 

database, Coca–Cola reported sales 

based on invoice dates during the POI 

and, when shipment dates preceded 

invoicing, on shipment dates. Based on 

its comment that the essential terms of 

sale do not change once a purchase 

order is accepted, we asked Coca–Cola 

to report sales based on the purchase–

order date or, when a shipment 

preceded the purchase–order date, the 

shipment date as date of sale. Because 

we did not receive this information in 

time for inclusion in this preliminary 

determination, we have used Coca–

Cola’s reported invoice date or, where 

the shipment preceded invoicing, the 

shipment date as the date of sale for the 

preliminary determination. 

We will examine the information 

submitted by Coca–Cola with respect to 

its purchase order; we will also examine 

this issue at verification and incorporate 

our findings in our analysis for the final 

determination. 

Fair–Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Coca–Cola’s 

sales of lemon juice from Mexico to the 

United States were made at less than 

fair value during the POI, we compared 

the export price or constructed export 

price (CEP) to normal value, as 

described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

In accordance with section 

777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we 

compared the weighted–average export 

prices and CEPs to normal value which, 

in this case, is constructed value (CV). 

In our comparisons, we offset the 

average–to-average comparisons of U.S 

prices and constructed values by any 

non–dumped comparisons. This 

approach comports with the 

methodology for investigations that we 

set forth in Antidumping Proceedings: 

Calculation of the Weighted–Average 

Dumping Margin During an 

Antidumping Investigation; Final 

Modification, 71 FR 77722 (December 

27, 2006). 

U.S. Price 

Section 772(a) of the Act defines 

export price as the price at which the 

subject merchandise is first sold (or 

agreed to be sold) before the date of 

importation by the producer or exporter 

outside the United States to an 

unaffiliated purchaser for exportation to 

the United States, as adjusted under 

subsection (c). During the POI, Coca–

Cola produced and sold subject 

merchandise to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 

importation. For sales of this 

merchandise, we have applied the 

export–price methodology. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20833 

Section 772(b) of the Act defines CEP 

as the price at which the subject 

merchandise is first sold (or agreed to be 

sold) in the United States before or after 

the date of importation by or for the 

account of the producer or exporter of 

such merchandise or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter, as adjusted under 

subsections (c) and (d). In addition to 

export–price sales, Coca–Cola also had 

CEP sales because it sold some subject 

merchandise to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States after the 

date of importation of the merchandise. 

Thus, we have applied the CEP 

methodology to these sales. 

We based export price and CEP on the 

packed price to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States. We made 

deductions, as appropriate, for billing 

adjustments. We also made deductions 

for any movement expenses in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. Accordingly, we made 

deductions for foreign inland freight 

from the processing plant to the 

Mexican border and brokerage expenses 

incurred in Mexico for all sales. For CEP 

sales, we also made deductions for U.S. 

brokerage expenses, U.S. warehousing 

expenses, and inland freight from the 

central warehouse to the point of 

distribution. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and the SAA at 823–824, we 

calculated the CEP further by deducting 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States, which consisted of credit 

expenses. In accordance with section 

772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted 

indirect selling expenses associated 

with economic activities occurring in 

the United States, which consisted of 

inventory carrying costs and the profit 

allocated to expenses deducted under 

section 772(d)(1) in accordance with 

sections 772(d)(3) and 772(f) of the Act. 

Because Coca–Cola reported expenses 

incurred on U.S. but not home–market 

sales, we calculated a CEP profit rate 

based on the expense information 

provided in its 2005 financial statement 

for sales of merchandise in all markets, 

pursuant to section 772(f)(2)(C)(iii) of 

the Act. We applied this rate to those 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States to obtain the profit 

amount we deducted from the sales 

price. 

During the POI, Coca–Cola sold lemon 

juice to a U.S. affiliate that further 

processed the merchandise into 

beverage or beverage–base products in 

the United States prior to sale to 

unaffiliated customers. Coca–Cola 

requested that it not be required to 

respond to section E of our 

questionnaire concerning its further–

processed merchandise and submitted 

data to support its claim that the U.S. 

value added for such sales is likely to 

exceed substantially the value of the 

imported subject merchandise. After 

reviewing its request, we found that the 

value added in the United States is 

likely to exceed substantially the value 

of the subject merchandise and that 

there is a sufficient quantity of U.S. 

sales of non–further-processed 

merchandise to provide a reasonable 

basis for comparison to normal value. 

Accordingly, we have implemented the 

special rule for value–added sales 

pursuant to section 772(e) of the Act 

and have not included the sales of 

further–processed merchandise in our 

margin calculations. See Memorandum 

from Minoo Hatten to Laurie Parkhill 

regarding the reporting of further–

manufactured merchandise, dated 

March 19, 2007. 

Normal Value 

A. Home–Market Viability and 

Comparison–Market Selection 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating normal value (i.e., the 

aggregate volume of home–market sales 

of the foreign like product is equal to or 

greater than five percent of the aggregate 

volume of U.S. sales), we compared 

Coca–Cola’s volume of home–market 

sales of the foreign like product to its 

volume of U.S. sales of the subject 

merchandise in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Because the 

volume of its home–market sales did not 

meet the five–percent threshold, we 

found that Coca–Cola’s home market 

was not viable for price–comparison 

purposes. Moreover, Coca–Cola did not 

sell the foreign like product to any other 

country during the POI. Consequently, 

pursuant to section 773(a)(4) of the Act, 

we have based normal value on CV for 

all sales. 

B. Level of Trade 

As discussed in the ‘‘Calculation of 

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value’’ section below, we based CV 

selling expenses and profit on Coca–

Cola’s home–market sales of orange 

juice during the POI and CV general and 

administrative (GNA) expenses on its 

2005 home–market sales of soft–drink 

concentrates. Coca–Cola has not 

provided level–of-trade information on 

any of its home–market sales and, thus, 

the record has insufficient information 

for us to perform a level–of-trade 

analysis for this preliminary 

determination. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

We calculated CV in accordance with 

section 773(e) of the Act, which states 

that CV shall be based on the sum of a 

respondent’s cost of materials and 

fabrication for the subject merchandise, 

plus amounts for selling, GNA expenses, 

profit, and U.S. packing costs. We relied 

on the submitted CV information for 

Coca–Cola except in certain instances. 

First, we have determined for the 

preliminary determination that lemon 

juice and lemon oil are co–products in 

Coca–Cola’s processing of lemons. Thus, 

we have revised Coca–Cola’s reported 

cost of manufacture for lemon juice to 

include a portion of the lemon–

purchase costs and a portion of the 

common lemon–processing costs 

incurred before the split–off point in the 

production of lemon juice and lemon 

oil. In addition, we have revised Coca–

Cola’s reported costs for the production 

of lemon juice to include an allocable 

portion of the company’s GNA 

expenses. For further discussion of 

these adjustments, see the 

Memorandum to Neal Halper from Mark 

Todd, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Determination,’’ dated April 19, 2007. 

Because we have determined for 

purposes of this preliminary 

determination that Coca–Cola does not 

have a viable home market or third–

country market, we have calculated 

Coca–Cola’s selling expenses and profit 

based on section 773(e)(2)(B)(i) of the 

Act, which states that selling expenses 

and profit may be calculated based on 

‘‘actual amounts incurred by the 

specific exporter or producer. . . in 

connection with the production and 

sale, for consumption in the foreign 

country, of merchandise that is in the 

same general category of products as the 

subject merchandise.’’ We have 

determined for the preliminary 

determination that Coca–Cola’s 

production and sale of orange juice in 

Mexico is merchandise in the same 

general category of products as lemon 

juice. Thus, we have revised the CV 

figures for Coca–Cola’s lemon juice to 

include selling expenses and profit 

amounts that are based on Coca–Cola’s 

production and sale of orange juice for 

consumption in Mexico. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act based on exchange 

rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
20834 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

sales, as certified by the Federal Reserve 

Bank. 

All–Others Rate 

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act 

provides that, where the estimated 

weighted–average dumping margins 

established for all exporters and 

producers individually investigated are 

zero or de minimis or are determined 

entirely under section 776 of the Act, 

the Department may use any reasonable 

method to establish the estimated ‘‘all 

others’’ rate for exporters and producers 

not individually investigated. This 

provision contemplates that the 

Department may weight–average 

margins other than the zero, de minimis, 

or AFA margins to establish the all–

others rate. 

When the data does not permit the 

weight–averaging of such other margins, 

the SAA provides that the Department 

may use any other reasonable method. 

See SAA at 873. Coca–Cola is the only 

respondent in this investigation for 

which we have calculated a company–

specific rate that is not based entirely on 

facts available. Therefore, for purposes 

of determining the ‘‘all others’’ rate and 

pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act, we are using the dumping margin 

we have calculated for Coca–Cola as 

indicated in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’ section below. 

Critical Circumstances 

A. Citrotam/Pronacit and Coca–Cola 

On March 30, 2007, the petitioner 

requested that the Department make a 

finding that critical circumstances exist 

with respect to imports of lemon juice 

from Mexico. The petitioner alleged that 

there is a reasonable basis to believe or 

suspect that critical circumstances exist 

with respect to the subject merchandise. 

Since this allegation was filed earlier 

than the deadline for the preliminary 

determination, we must issue our 

preliminary critical–circumstances 

determination not later than the 

preliminary determination. See 19 CFR 

351.206(c)(2); see also Policy Bulletin 

98/4 regarding Timing of Issuance of 

Critical Circumstances Determinations, 

63 FR 55364 (October 15, 1998). 

Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department will preliminarily 

determine that critical circumstances 

exist if there is a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that (A)(i) there is a 

history of dumping and material injury 

by reason of dumped imports in the 

United States or elsewhere of the subject 

merchandise or (ii) the person by whom, 

or for whose account, the merchandise 

was imported knew or should have 

known that the exporter was selling the 

subject merchandise at less than its fair 

value and that there was likely to be 

material injury by reason of such sales 

and (B) there have been massive imports 

of the subject merchandise over a 

relatively short period. 

In determining whether the relevant 

statutory criteria have been satisfied, the 

Department considered the evidence 

presented in the petitioner’s March 30, 

2007, submission, exporter–specific 

shipment data submitted by Coca–Cola 

on April 9, 2007, and the ITC 

Preliminary Report. 

To determine whether there is a 

history of injurious dumping of the 

merchandise under investigation, in 

accordance with section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) 

of the Act, the Department normally 

considers evidence of an existing 

antidumping duty order on the subject 

merchandise in the United States or 

elsewhere to be sufficient. See 

Preliminary Determinations of Critical 

Circumstances: Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine and 

Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (November 27, 

2000). See also Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 

(April 17, 2006). The petitioner has 

made no statement concerning a history 

of dumping of lemon juice from Mexico. 

Moreover, we are not aware of any 

antidumping duty order on lemon juice 

from Mexico in any other country. 

Therefore, the Department finds no 

history of injurious dumping of lemon 

juice from Mexico pursuant to section 

733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act. 

To determine whether the person by 

whom, or for whose account, the 

merchandise was imported knew or 

should have known that the exporter 

was selling the subject merchandise at 

less than its fair value, in accordance 

with section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, 

the Department normally considers 

margins of 25 percent or more for 

export–price sales or 15 percent or more 

for CEP transactions sufficient to impute 

knowledge of dumping. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 

(June 11, 1997). For the reasons 

explained above, we have assigned a 

margin of 205.37 percent to Citrotam/ 

Pronacit. Based on this margin, we have 

imputed importer knowledge of 

dumping for Citrotam/Pronacit. See 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances: Wax and 

Wax/Resin Thermal Transfer Ribbons 

from Japan, 68 FR 71077 (December 22, 

2003) (TTR from Japan). With respect to 

Coca–Cola, because the preliminary 

dumping margin for Coca–Cola is 

146.10 percent, we preliminarily 

determine that the knowledge criterion 

has been met. 

In determining whether there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that an importer knew or should have 

known that there was likely to be 

material injury by reason of dumped 

imports, consistent with section 

733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 

Department normally will look to the 

preliminary injury determination of the 

ITC. See Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Japan, 64 FR 30574, 30578 (June 

8, 1999) (Stainless Steel from Japan). 

The ITC preliminarily found material 

injury to the domestic industry due to 

imports of lemon juice from Mexico, 

which are alleged to be sold in the 

United States at less than fair value, 

and, on this basis, the Department may 

impute knowledge of likelihood of 

injury to these respondents. See ITC 

Preliminary Report. Thus, we determine 

that the knowledge criterion for 

ascertaining whether critical 

circumstances exist has been satisfied. 

Because Citrotam/Pronacit has met 

the first prong of the critical–

circumstances test, according to section 

733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act we must 

examine whether imports from 

Citrotam/Pronacit were massive over a 

relatively short period of time. Section 

733(e)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the 

Department will preliminarily 

determine that critical circumstances 

exist if there is a reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that there have been 

massive imports of the subject 

merchandise over a relatively short 

period. 

Section 351.206(h)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations provides that, 

in determining whether imports of the 

subject merchandise have been 

‘‘massive,’’ the Department normally 

will examine the volume and value of 

the imports, seasonal trends, and the 

share of domestic consumption for 

which the imports accounted. In 

addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides 

that an increase in imports of 15 percent 

during the ‘‘relatively short period’’ of 

time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’

Section 351.206(i) of the Department’s 

regulations defines ‘‘relatively short 

period’’ as normally being the period 

beginning on the date the proceeding 

begins (i.e., the date on which the 

petition is filed) and ending at least 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20835 

three months later. The Department’s 

regulations also provide, however, that, 

if the Department finds that importers, 

exporters, or producers had reason to 

believe, at some time prior to the 

beginning of the proceeding, that a 

proceeding was likely, the Department 

may consider a period of not less than 

three months from that earlier time. 

Because there is no verifiable 

information on the record with respect 

to Citrotam/Pronacit’s import volumes, 

we must use facts available in 

accordance with section 776(a) of the 

Act. Moreover, because Citrotam/ 

Pronacit failed to cooperate to the best 

of its ability, pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act, we have used an adverse 

inference in applying facts available and 

determine that there were massive 

imports from Citrotam/Pronacit over a 

relatively short period. See TTR from 

Japan, 68 FR at 71077. 

Accordingly, because all of the 

necessary criteria have been met, in 

accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the 

Act, we preliminarily find that critical 

circumstances exist with respect lemon 

juice imported from Citrotam/Pronacit. 

On April 9, 2007, Coca–Cola filed 

monthly import data for shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States for June 2006 through March 

2007. Coca–Cola’s reported shipment 

data show that its volume of shipments 

of lemon juice is greater than the 

Department’s 15–percent threshold for 

finding that imports have been massive. 

Coca–Cola contends that its increase in 

imports can be explained by seasonal 

trends. We have examined the 

information on the record and find that 

the increase in Coca–Cola’s shipments 

during the comparison period is 

consistent with seasonal patterns related 

to the growing season for lemons and 

the corresponding production cycle for 

lemon juice. We analyzed import data 

for the relevant base and comparison 

periods for 2003 through 2006 and find 

that shipments show a consistent 

pattern of seasonality. For a detailed 

discussion see memorandum from 

Minoo Hatten to Laurie Parkhill entitled 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Lemon Juice From Mexico - Preliminary 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances’’ dated April 18, 2007. 

Therefore we determine that there were 

no massive imports from Coco–Cola 

over a relatively short period. We 

preliminarily find that critical 

circumstances do not exist with respect 

to lemon juice imported from Coca–

Cola. 

B. All Others 

It is the Department’s normal practice 

to conduct its critical–circumstances 

analysis of companies in the all–others 

group based on the experience of 

investigated companies. See Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars from Turkey, 62 FR 

9737, 9741 (March 4, 1997), where the 

Department found that critical 

circumstances existed for the majority of 

the companies investigated and 

concluded that critical circumstances 

also existed for companies covered by 

the all–others rate. As we determined in 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Hot–Rolled 

Flat–Rolled Carbon–Quality Steel 

Products from Japan, 64 FR 24329 (May 

6, 1999), applying that approach 

literally could produce anomalous 

results in certain cases. Thus, in 

deciding whether critical circumstances 

apply to companies covered by the all–

others rate, the Department also 

considers the traditional critical–

circumstances criteria. 

First, in determining whether there is 

a reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that an importer knew or should have 

known that the exporter was selling 

lemon juice at less than fair value, we 

look to the all–others rate. See TTR from 

Japan, 68 FR at 71077. The dumping 

margin for the all–others category, 

146.10 percent, is greater than the 25–

percent threshold necessary to impute 

knowledge of dumping consistent with 

section 733(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act. 

Second, based on the ITC’s preliminary 

material–injury determination, we also 

find that importers knew or should have 

known that there would be material 

injury from the dumped merchandise 

consistent with 19 CFR 351.206. See ITC 

Preliminary Report. 

Finally, in determining whether 

imports from the all–others category 

have been massive, where possible, we 

have followed our normal practice of 

conducting the critical–circumstances 

analysis of companies in this category 

based on the experience of the 

investigated companies. We are unable 

to base our determination on our 

findings for Citrotam/Pronacit because 

our determination for Citrotam/Pronacit 

was based on AFA. Consistent with TTR 

from Japan, we have not inferred 

adverse facts, that massive imports exist 

for all–others companies, because, 

unlike Citrotam/Pronacit, the all–others 

companies have not failed to cooperate 

to the best of their ability in this 

investigation. Therefore, an adverse 

inference with respect to shipment 

levels by the all–others companies is not 

appropriate. 

In this case, we have considered the 

experience of Coca–Cola. As discussed 

above, we preliminarily find that 

imports from Coca–Cola have not been 

massive over a relatively short period of 

time. Since our normal practice of 

conducting the critical–circumstances 

analysis of companies in the all–others 

category is based on the experience of 

the investigated companies, we 

determine that there have been no 

massive imports of lemon juice from 

companies in the all–others category. In 

addition, to ensure that relying upon the 

experience of the investigated 

companies did not cause anomalous 

results, we also reviewed the import 

statistics. In the case of lemon juice we 

are able to rely on information on the 

ITC’s website because, in this 

investigation, the HTSUS categories for 

merchandise within the scope of the 

investigation (except for one) include 

only subject merchandise. The import 

statistics for Mexico support the 

conclusion that there have not been 

massive imports from Mexico. 

Consequently, the criteria necessary 

for determining affirmative critical 

circumstances with respect to the all–

others category have not been met. 

Therefore, we have preliminarily 

determined that critical circumstances 

do not exist for imports of lemon juice 

from Mexico for companies in the all–

others category. 

We will make a final determination 

concerning critical circumstances for all 

producers and exporters of subject 

merchandise from Mexico when we 

make our final antidumping 

determination in this investigation. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we intend to verify all information 

upon which we will rely in making our 

final determination for Coca–Cola. 

Preliminary Determination 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average dumping 

margins exist for the period July 1, 2005, 

through June 30, 2006: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (percent) 

The Coca–Cola Export 

Corporation, Mexico 

Branch ....................... 146.10 

Citrotam Internacional 

S.P.R. de 

R.L.(Citrotam)/ 

Productos Naturales 

de Citricos (Pronacit) 205.37 

All Others ...................... 146.10 

Suspension of Liquidation 

In accordance with section 733(d) of 

the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of lemon juice 

from Mexico that are entered, or 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
20836 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Additionally, for Citrotam/ 

Pronacit, we will instruct CBP to 

suspend liquidation of entries made on 

or after 90 days prior to the publication 

of this notice in accordance with section 

733(e)(2) of the Act. We will instruct 

CBP to require a cash deposit or the 

posting of a bond equal to the weighted–

average margin, as indicated in the chart 

above, as follows: (1) the rates for the 

mandatory respondents will be the rates 

we have determined in this preliminary 

determination; (2) if the exporter is not 

a firm identified in this investigation 

but the producer is, the rate will be the 

rate established for the producer of the 

subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all 

other producers or exporters will be 

146.10 percent. These suspension–ofliquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this 

proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

International Trade Commission 

Notification 

In accordance with section 733(f) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value. If our final 

antidumping determination is 

affirmative, the ITC will determine 

whether the imports covered by that 

determination are materially injuring, or 

threatening material injury to, the U.S. 

industry. The deadline for the ITC’s 

determination will be the later of 120 

days after the date of this preliminary 

determination or 45 days after the date 

of our final determination. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs to the Department no 

later than seven days after the date of 

the issuance of the final verification 

report in this proceeding. Rebuttal 

briefs, the content of which is limited to 

the issues raised in the case briefs, must 

be filed within five days from the 

deadline for the submission of case 

briefs. Executive summaries should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. Further, we request that 

parties submitting briefs and rebuttal 

briefs provide us with a copy of the 

public version of such briefs on diskette. 

Section 774 of the Act provides that the 

Department will hold a hearing to afford 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on arguments raised in case or 

rebuttal briefs, provided that such a 

hearing is requested by an interested 

party. If a request for a hearing is made 

in an investigation, the hearing 

normally will be held two days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20230. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

time, date, and place of the hearing 48 

hours before the scheduled time. 

Interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request within 30 days of the 

publication of this notice. Requests 

should specify the number of 

participants and provide a list of the 

issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. We will make our 

final determination within 75 days after 

the date of this preliminary 

determination. 

This determination is issued and 

published pursuant to sections 733(f) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8019 Filed 4–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[Docket No. 070416085–7085–01; I.D. 

040907A] 

Fishing Capacity Reduction Program 

for the Longline Catcher Processor 

Subsector of the Bering Sea/Aleutian 

Islands (BSAI) Non-Pollock Groundfish 

Fishery 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of BSAI Non-Pollock 

Groundfish Longline Catcher Processor 

Subsector reduction payment tender. 

SUMMARY: NMFS issues this notice to 

inform the public about tendering 

reduction payments under the longline 

catcher processor subsector of the 

Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) nonpollock groundfish fishery. The Freezer 

Longline Conservation Cooperative 

(FLCC) conducted the offer and 

selection process, submitted the 

reduction plan, and accepted four offers 

to remove groundfish license limitation 

program (LLP) licenses. A successful 

referendum approved the reduction loan 

repayment fees of $35 million. 

Accordingly, NMFS is preparing to 

tender reduction payments to accepted 

offerors. 

DATES: The public has until May 29, 

2007 to inform NMFS of any holding, 

owning, or retaining claims that conflict 

with the representations of offers as 

presented by the FLCC. 

ADDRESSES: Send questions about this 

notice to Leo Erwin, Chief, Financial 

Services Division, National Marine 

Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West 

Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–

3282. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leo 

Erwin, (301) 713–2390. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Section 219(e) of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act of 2005 established 

the BSAI non-pollock groundfish 

longline catcher processor subsector 

fishing capacity reduction program 

(program). The program was 

implemented after the proposed rule 

was published in the Federal Register 

on August 11, 2006 (71 FR 46364) and 

the final rule on September 29, 2006 (71 

FR 57696). Persons wanting further 

program details should refer to these 

rules. 

The program’s objectives include 

promoting sustainable fishery 

management and maximum sustained 

reduction of fishing capacity from the 

longline catcher processor subsector at 

the least cost. This is a voluntary 

program in which, in return for 

reduction payments, offerors 

permanently relinquish their fishing 

licenses, surrender the fishing histories 

upon which those licenses’ issuance 

were based, and permanently withdraw 

vessels from fishing. 

NMFS finances the program’s $35 

million cost, which post-reduction BSAI 

non-pollock groundfish longline catcher 

processors repay over a 30–year term. 

The fee amount, expressed in cents per 

pound rounded up to the next one-tenth 

of a cent, will be based upon the annual 

principal and interest due on the loan 

and could be up to 5 percent of longline 

subsector BSAI Pacific cod landings. In 

the event that the total principal and 

interest due exceeds 5 percent of the exvessel Pacific cod revenues, an 

additional fee of one penny per pound 

will be assessed for pollock, arrowtooth 

flounder, Greenland turbot, skate, 

yellowfin sole and rock sole. 

The FLCC received member offers and 

subsequently voted to accept four offers. 

The FLCC used the reduction contracts 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES