20820 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing of all home 

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 

of sales in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C 

requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D 

requests information on the cost of production 

(COP) of the foreign like product and the 

constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under 

investigation. 

Preliminary Determination by the 

International Trade Commission 

The International Trade Commission 

will preliminarily determine, no later 

than May 14, 2007, whether there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of 

glycine from India, Japan, and/or Korea 

are materially injuring, or threatening 

material injury to, a U.S. industry. A 

negative ITC determination with respect 

to any of the investigations will result 

in that investigation being terminated; 

otherwise, these investigations will 

proceed according to statutory and 

regulatory time limits. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Joseph A. Spetrini, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–8017 Filed 4–25–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–818] 

Lemon Juice from Argentina: 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a petition filed 

by Sunkist Growers, Inc. (Petitioner), 

the U.S. Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

antidumping duty investigation of sales 

to the United States of lemon juice from 

Argentina for the period July 1, 2005 

through June 30, 2006. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations: Lemon Juice from 

Argentina and Mexico, 71 FR 61710 

(October 19, 2006) (Initiation Notice). 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that lemon juice from 

Argentina is being, or is likely to be, 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value (LTFV), as provided in section 

733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are listed in 

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section 

of this notice. Moreover, we 

preliminarily determine that critical 

circumstances exist with regard to 

imports of lemon juice from Argentina. 

See the ‘‘Critical Circumstances’’ section 

below. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on this preliminary 

determination. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 26, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mark Hoadley or Joshua Reitze, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3148, or (202) 

482–0666, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

This investigation was initiated on 

October 19, 2006. See Initiation Notice. 

Since the initiation of the investigation, 

the following events have occurred. On 

November 6, 2006, the United States 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

preliminarily determined that there is a 

reasonable indication that imports of the 

products subject to this investigation are 

materially injuring an industry in the 

United States producing the domestic 

like product. See Lemon Juice from 

Argentina and Mexico, 71 FR 66795 

(November 16, 2006) (ITC Preliminary 

Determination). 

On November 7, 2006, the Department 

selected Citrusvil, S.A. (Citrusvil) and 

S.A. San Miguel A.G.I.C.y F. (San 

Miguel) as the respondents in this 

investigation. See ‘‘Respondent 

Selection’’ section below. On November 

7, 2006, the Department issued a letter 

providing interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on a proposed 

set of model–match criteria. We 

received comments in response to this 

letter from Petitioner, Citrusvil, and San 

Miguel on November 13, 2006. Based on 

our analysis of these submissions, we 

determined the appropriate model–

match characteristics. See Memorandum 

to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, 

and Laurie Parkhill, Director, Office 5, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigations of 

Lemon Juice from Argentina and 

Mexico: Selection of Model Matching 

Criteria’’ (November 20, 2006). 

The Department issued sections A - D 

of the questionnaire to Citrusvil and San 

Miguel on November 20, 2006.1

Citrusvil submitted its response to 

section A on December 18, 2007. 

Citrusvil submitted its response to 

sections B and C on January 17, 2007, 

and its section D response on January 

22, 2007. San Miguel submitted its 

response to section A on December 14, 

2006, responses to sections B and C on 

January 16, 2007, and its response to 

section D on March 12, 2007. 

On January 5, 2007, Petitioner 

submitted comments on Citrusvil’s 

section A response. The Department 

issued a supplemental section A 

questionnaire to Citrusvil on January 16, 

2007. We received Citrusvil’s 

supplemental section A response on 

January 26, 2007. On January 31, 2007, 

Petitioner submitted a German–specific, 

sales–below-cost allegation. Citrusvil 

did not rebut this allegation. On 

February 1, 2007, we issued a 

supplemental section D questionnaire to 

Citrusvil, to which Citrusvil responded 

on February 23, 2007. On February 9, 

2007, and again on March 6, 2007, 

Petitioner submitted comments on 

Citrusvil’s section D response. On 

January 30, 2007, Petitioner submitted 

comments on Citrusvil’s section B and 

C response. The Department issued a 

supplemental section B and C 

questionnaire to Citrusvil on February 5, 

2007. We received Citrusvil’s 

supplemental section B and C response 

on March 9, 2007. Citrusvil submitted 

corrections to its section B and C 

response on April 4, 2007. On February 

9, 2007, Petitioner submitted comments 

concerning possible affiliation issues 

between Citrusvil and its German sales 

agent. On February 16, 2007, the 

Department sent a general supplemental 

questionnaire to Citrusvil, to which 

Citrusvil responded on March 12, 2007. 

On March 15, we sent Citrusvil a second 

supplemental section D questionnaire, 

to which Citrusvil responded on April 

5, 2007. On March 23, 2007, we sent 

Citrusvil a request for additional sales 

information, to which Citrusvil partially 

responded on April 9, 2007. 

Petitioner submitted its comments on 

San Miguel’s section A response on 

January 29, 2007. On January 12, 2007, 

the Department issued a supplemental 

section A questionnaire to San Miguel. 

Petitioner filed a sales–below-cost 

allegation on January 24, 2007 with 

respect to San Miguel’s sales in 

Argentina. On February 23, 2007, 

Petitioner submitted comments to San 

Miguel’s section B and C response. The 

Department issued a supplemental 

section A to San Miguel on January 16, 

2007, supplemental sections B and C on 

January 31, 2007, and a supplemental 

section D on March 16, 2007. San 

Miguel responded to the supplemental 

section A on January 23, 2007, 

supplemental sections B and C on 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20821 

2We have preliminarily determined that Germany 

is Citrusvil’s comparison market. See ‘‘Selection of 

Comparison Market’’ section below. 

March 1, 2007, and supplemental 

section D on April 5, 2007. 

On February 1, 2007, Petitioner 

requested that the Department extend 

the preliminary determination in this 

investigation from February 28, 2007 to 

April 19, 2007. On February 16, 2007, 

the Department postponed the 

preliminary determination to April 19, 

2007 pursuant to section 733(c) of the 

Act. See Postponement of Preliminary 

Determinations of Antidumping Duty 

Investigations: Lemon Juice from 

Argentina and Mexico, 72 FR 7606 

(February 16, 2007). 

On March 26, 2007, April 9, 2007, and 

April 10, 2007, Petitioner submitted 

comments in anticipation of the 

preliminary determination. On March 

16, 2007, the Department granted 

Petitioner an extension of time until 

March 27, 2007 to file its allegation of 

targeted dumping. On March 27, 2007, 

Petitioner submitted a targeted dumping 

allegation for San Miguel. On April 13, 

2007, San Miguel submitted comments 

in response to Petitioner’s allegation. 

Although this allegation was timely, the 

Department did not have sufficient time 

to fully analyze it for purposes of this 

preliminary determination pursuant to 

section 777A(d)(1)(B) of the Act. We 

intend to fully consider this issue for 

purposes of our final determination. 

Finally, on March 30, 2007, Petitioner 

alleged that critical circumstances 

existed with regard to imports of lemon 

juice from Argentina and Mexico. On 

April 4, 2007, the Department issued 

letters to Citrusvil and San Miguel, 

requesting that the respondents provide 

shipment data for purposes of the 

Department’s critical circumstances 

inquiry. On April 11, 2007, Citrusvil 

and San Miguel submitted the requested 

shipment data. For further information 

on the Department’s preliminary critical 

circumstances determination, see 

‘‘Critical Circumstances’’ section below. 

Respondent Selection 

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

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter and producer of the subject 

merchandise. Section 777A(c)(2) of the 

Act gives the Department discretion, 

when faced with a large number of 

producers/exporters, to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

such companies if it is not practicable 

to examine all companies. Where it is 

not practicable to examine all known 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise, this provision permits the 

Department to investigate either (A) a 

sample of exporters, producers, or types 

of products that is statistically valid 

based on the information available to 

the Department at the time of selection 

or (B) producers/exporters accounting 

for the largest volume of the 

merchandise under investigation that 

can reasonably be examined. In the 

petition, Petitioner identified nine 

potential producers and exporters of 

lemon juice in Argentina: Citrusvil, San 

Miguel, Vicente Trapani S.A., Citromax 

S.A.C.I (Citromax), Litoral Citrus S.A., 

COTA S.A., La Moraleja S.A., Jugos 

Minerva (Molinos Rio de la Plata), and 

Jugos Minerva (S.C. Johnson & Son de 

Argentina S.A.I.C.). The Department 

determined that it was unable to 

investigate all nine of these named 

producers/exporters. See Memorandum 

to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Lemon Juice from Argentina - 

Respondent Selection’’, (November 7, 

2006) (Respondent Selection 

Memorandum). 

Based on our analysis of import data 

obtained from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), we selected two 

producers/exporters, Citrusvil and San 

Miguel as the mandatory respondents in 

this investigation because they were the 

largest Argentine producers/exporters of 

lemon juice to the United States, 

accounting for the vast majority of 

imports into the United States. For a 

complete analysis of the respondent 

selection, see Respondent Selection 

Memorandum. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the 

Department has calculated individual 

dumping margins for each of the two 

selected producers/exporters. 

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 filing of the petition (i.e., September 

2006) involving imports from a market 

economy, and is in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations. See 19 CFR 

351.204(b)(1). 

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 U.S. Customs and 

Border Patrol purposes, our written 

description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Scope Issue 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department set aside a period for parties 

to submit comments on the scope of the 

investigations on Argentina and Mexico. 

On November 1, 2006, Citromax 

submitted comments stating that organic 

lemon juice should be excluded from 

the scope of the investigations. On 

November 8, 2006, Petitioner responded 

to Citromax’s November 1, 2006, scope 

comments, arguing that organic lemon 

juice should remain within the scope of 

the investigations. On March 21, 2007, 

the Department issued a decision that 

organic lemon juice is included within 

the scope of the investigations on lemon 

juice from Argentina and Mexico. For a 

detailed discussion of our decision, see 

Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, ‘‘Scope Issue in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigations on 

Lemon Juice from Argentina and 

Mexico’’ (March 21, 2007). 

Date of Sale 

It is the Department’s practice to use 

invoice date as the date of sale. 

However, the Secretary ‘‘may use a date 

other than the date of invoice if the 

Secretary is satisfied that a different 

date better reflects the date on which 

the exporter or producer establishes the 

material terms of sale.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.401(i); see also Allied Tube and 

Conduit Corp. v. United States, 132 F. 

Supp. 2d 1087, 1090–92 (CIT 2001). 

Citrusvil reported date of purchase 

order as the date of sale for all sales in 

the U.S. market that involved purchase 

orders; otherwise, it reported invoice 

date. See Citrusvil January 17, 2007, 

section B and C response at C–7. 

Citrusvil reported contract date for all 

sales to Germany2 that involved shortor long–term contract agreements; for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
20822 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

the remaining sales, Citrusvil reported 

purchase order date as date of sale. See 

Citrusvil January 17, 2007 section B and 

C response at B–7. Citrusvil reported 

that these dates were the earliest dates 

on which the material terms of sale (i.e., 

price and quantity) were fixed, and that 

these terms never change after these 

dates. Because the material terms of sale 

are established when the purchase order 

is issued or contracts are signed, and 

because Citrusvil has stated that the 

terms of sale never changed after they 

were established, we are using the dates 

of sale as reported by Citrusvil. 

San Miguel reported invoice date as 

date of sale for all sales in both markets, 

stating that the material terms of sale 

indicated in other documents 

sometimes change before invoices are 

issued. It provided two examples of 

such changes. First, it referred to a 

purchase order issued by a U.S. 

customer requiring multiple shipments. 

This customer later requested that San 

Miguel cancel some of the shipments 

ordered. While San Miguel agreed and 

these shipments were therefore never 

shipped nor invoiced, the fact that the 

buyer felt compelled to ask San Miguel 

to cancel indicates that the parties 

considered the purchase order binding. 

In the second example, San Miguel 

reached an agreement via email 

regarding the per–unit price of 

shipments to a U.S. customer, but the 

price stated in the purchase order, 

issued subsequent to the exchange of 

emails, is different from that indicated 

in the email agreement. However, this 

change occurred between the date of an 

email agreement and the resulting 

purchase order, not between the 

purchase order and invoice. See San 

Miguel March 1, 2007 supplemental 

section B and C response, at 2–4. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily find that 

the two examples of changes in material 

terms of sale prior to invoice provided 

by San Miguel are not sufficient to show 

actual changes in material terms 

between purchase order date and 

invoice date, nor do they support a 

conclusion that the parties at issue 

consider purchase orders to be non–

binding. 

Moreover, San Miguel’s description of 

its production and distribution process 

indicates that the use of invoice date as 

date of sale for all sales may be 

distortive, given the significant lag time 

between purchase order date and 

invoice date. The record indicates that 

invoices can be issued up to several 

months after purchase orders are 

received. As such, the material terms of 

sale are set much earlier in the process 

than invoice date would indicate. 

Thus, for all sales involving purchase 

orders to the United States and 

comparison markets, the Department 

preliminarily determines that purchase 

order is the appropriate date of sale, as 

the evidence on the record demonstrates 

that the material terms of sale set forth 

in the purchase orders are not subject to 

change. For sales in which a purchase 

order is not generated, we will use the 

earliest of shipment or invoice date. 

Because purchase order date is not yet 

on the record for all sales reported by 

San Miguel, we are using the earliest of 

shipment or invoice date as date of sale 

for purposes of this preliminary 

determination. The Department has 

requested that San Miguel provide, prior 

to verification, revised U.S. and 

comparison market sales databases 

using purchase order date as date of 

sale. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of lemon 

juice to the United States were made at 

LTFV, we compared export price (EP) or 

constructed export price (CEP) to 

normal value (NV) or constructed value 

(CV), as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’

‘‘Normal Value,’’ and ‘‘Constructed 

Value’’ sections below. 

U.S. Price 

Section 772(a) and (b) of the Act 

defines EP and CEP: 

The term ‘‘export price’’ means 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 of the subject merchandise 

outside of the United States to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States or to an unaffiliated 

purchaser for exportation to the 

United States, as adjusted under 

subsection (c). 

The term ‘‘constructed export price’’

means 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). 

For purposes of this investigation, 

Citrusvil classified all of its U.S. sales as 

CEP sales. Citrusvil stated that, although 

it is not affiliated with any companies 

in the United States, its sales occurred 

after importation into the United States 

and are thus CEP sales. The record 

evidence indicates, however, that, based 

on purchase order date, Citrusvil’s sales 

to the United States were made prior to 

importation. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that all of 

Citrusvil’s U.S. transactions were EP 

sales. 

We calculated the EP for Citrusvil in 

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

Act. We made appropriate deductions 

from gross unit price for Argentine 

inland freight and warehousing, 

Argentine brokerage and handling, 

international freight and insurance, U.S. 

brokerage and handling, U.S. freight and 

warehousing, U.S. duties, a fee paid to 

the regional government of Tucuman, 

and an export tax paid to the Argentine 

government. See Analysis Memorandum 

for Lemon Juice from Argentina: 

Citrusvil, April 19, 2007 (Citrusvil 

Analysis Memorandum). 

San Miguel reported that most of its 

U.S. sales took place prior to 

importation. It noted, however, that a 

small number of those sales were made 

after importation. According to San 

Miguel, these sales were made to the 

U.S. customer out of inventory held in 

a refrigerated warehouse located in the 

United States. Thus, because these sales 

were made after importation, they 

cannot be classified as EP sales and we 

are treating them as CEP sales. 

We calculated the EP for San Miguel 

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

the Act. We made appropriate 

deductions for billing adjustments (or 

added billing adjustments in some 

cases), Argentine inland freight and 

warehousing, Argentine brokerage and 

handling, international freight and 

insurance, U.S. brokerage and handling, 

U.S. freight and warehousing, U.S. 

duties, a fee paid to the regional 

government of Tucuman, and an export 

tax paid to the Argentine government. 

San Miguel claimed another U.S. price 

adjustment: a per–sale reimbursement 

received from the Argentine government 

under its Reintegro program. In past 

proceedings involving merchandise 

from Argentina, we have accounted for 

these reimbursements by making an 

adjustment to cost of manufacturing 

(COM), and will do so here as well. See, 

e.g., Notice of Final Results and 

Recision in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; Oil Country 

Tubular Goods, Other Than Drill Pipe, 

From Argentina, 68 FR 13262, 13263 

(March 19, 2003), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 5; Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Cold–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

Argentina, 67 FR 62138 (October 3, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20823 

2002), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

We calculated CEP for the small 

number of San Miguel’s sales as 

discussed above in accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act. For CEP, we 

would normally deduct direct selling 

expenses and indirect selling expenses 

related to commercial activity in the 

United States in accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act; however, 

for San Miguel we only made a 

deduction for its credit expenses. These 

credit expenses covered the time 

between the date of shipment from 

Buenos Aires until the date payment 

was received. Deducting U.S. inventory 

carrying costs would impermissibly 

double count a portion of these credit 

expenses, because the number of days 

between date of shipment from Buenos 

Aires and payment date includes the 

number of days the CEP sales spent in 

U.S. inventory. See 19 CFR 

351.401(b)(2). Also, because there was 

no affiliate acting on San Miguel’s 

behalf in the United States, there are no 

U.S. indirect selling expenses to deduct, 

except for a few sales involving 

commissions paid to unaffiliated parties 

(in which case we deducted 

commissions from the U.S. price). All 

expenses related to the U.S. 

warehousing of these CEP sales are 

accounted for in the U.S. warehousing 

expense field reported by San Miguel 

and deducted from price as a movement 

expense. See Analysis Memorandum for 

Lemon Juice from Argentina: San 

Miguel, April 19, 2007 (San Miguel 

Analysis Memorandum). 

Normal Value 

A. Selection of Comparison Market 

Section 773(a)(1) of the Act directs the 

Department to calculate NV based on 

the price at which the foreign like 

product is first sold in the home market, 

provided that the merchandise is sold in 

sufficient quantities (or value, if 

quantity is inappropriate), and that 

there is no particular market situation 

that prevents a proper comparison with 

the export price. Under the statute, the 

Department will normally consider 

quantity (or value) insufficient if it is 

less than five percent of the aggregate 

quantity (or value) of sales of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. See 

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

Citrusvil’s sales in Argentina were 

less than five percent of its sales to the 

United States; therefore, we found that 

Citrusvil did not have a viable home 

market for lemon juice to serve as the 

basis for comparison market sales in 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.404. Citrusvil 

reports that it makes sales throughout 

Europe either to exclusive sales agents 

who then sell to unaffiliated customers 

(channel 1) or through the same 

exclusive agents to unaffiliated 

customers (channel 2). See Citrusvil 

December 18, 2006 section A response 

at 2, 11. In both sales channels, Citrusvil 

controls the terms of sale which 

normally are made on a Free Carrier 

(FCA) Rotterdam basis. Under FCA sales 

terms, title and risk transfer from 

Citrusvil to the agent who collects 

payment from (and releases the 

merchandise to) the ultimate customer 

in sales designated as channel 1 by 

Citrusvil. In sales designated as channel 

2 sales by Citrusvil, title and risk 

transfer directly to the unaffiliated 

customers after that customer pays 

Citrusvil. See Citrusvil January 17, 2007, 

section B and C response, at B–8. In 

both sales channels, it appears that the 

customer (rather than Citrusvil) is 

responsible for any inland delivery 

within Europe. 

To determine the most appropriate 

third country market for comparison 

purposes, the Department examined the 

record evidence, including statements 

by Citrusvil. Initially Citrusvil claimed 

that it does not know with certainty to 

which European country its product is 

ultimately delivered. However, Citrusvil 

also stated that it believes the address 

on its invoice is the best indication of 

where the merchandise is ultimately 

delivered, and that customers with 

facilities in more than one country 

request that the invoice be issued to the 

address where the product is delivered. 

See Citrusvil December 18, 2006 section 

A response, at A–2. Because the 

information we have gathered with 

respect to Citrusvil and its agents 

indicates that at the time of price and 

quantity negotiations, Citrusvil has 

knowledge of the first unaffiliated 

customer and the country in which such 

customer is located, we believe that it is 

appropriate to classify the sales shipped 

to Rotterdam based on the customer and 

its country of location. 

Classifying the sales as described 

above, we find that Germany is 

Citrusvil’s largest third country market 

for sales of foreign like product. We 

further find that there are no significant 

differences in product comparability 

with respect to Citrusvil’s sales to 

Germany and sales to other third 

country markets and merchandise sold 

to the United States. As such, we 

preliminarily determine that Germany is 

the appropriate comparison market. See 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Comparison Market Prices’’ and 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Constructed Value’’ sections below. 

San Miguel’s sales of lemon juice in 

Argentina were sufficient to find the 

home market a viable for comparison 

purposes. Accordingly, we calculated 

NV for San Miguel based on sales prices 

to Argentine customers. See 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Comparison Market Prices’’ and 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Constructed Value’’ sections below. 

B. Cost of Production Analysis 

In the petition, Petitioner alleged that 

Argentine producers/exporters made 

sales in the comparison market at less 

than the cost of production (COP). In the 

allegation, Petitioner used the 

Netherlands as the comparison market, 

arguing that Argentina was not a viable 

market. Based on these allegations, and 

in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act, we found 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that lemon juice sales were made in the 

comparison market at prices below the 

COP and initiated a country–wide 

sales–below-cost investigation. See 

Initiation Notice. 

After reviewing Citrusvil’s section A 

response, we determined that Citrusvil’s 

sales to Argentina did not meet the 

viability threshold. Based on the section 

A response, however, it was unclear 

what the appropriate third–country 

comparison market was. As reported by 

Citrusvil, virtually all of its sales to 

Europe are shipped FCA Rotterdam. It 

claimed Germany as the proper 

comparison market based on the volume 

of sales to customers located in 

Germany. As discussed above, the 

Department has now determined that 

Germany is the most appropriate third–

country market for comparison 

purposes. Although the sales–belowcost allegation from the petition 

involved shipments to the Netherlands–

including, presumably, merchandise 

subsequently shipped to Germany–we 

informed the parties that the sales–

below-cost allegation in the petition was 

still viable. See Letter from the 

Department to Citrusvil (December 22, 

2007) stating that the ‘‘allegation was 

made using shipment data to Rotterdam. 

The Rotterdam data did not exclude 

transhipments to other points in Europe, 

and thus should have included any 

transhipments to Germany.’’ Citrusvil 

did not object to this request and 

submitted section D of its questionnaire 

response on January 22, 2007. Further, 

as noted above in the ‘‘Case History’’

section of this notice, on January 31, 

2007, Petitioner submitted a German–

specific, sales–below-cost allegation, 

which Citrusvil did not rebut. 

The petition compared COP to the 

FOB Rotterdam value of shipments to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
20824 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

the Netherlands. Citrusvil reports that it 

ships virtually everything sold to all 

countries in Europe to the Netherlands, 

on an FCA basis, at which point the 

product is claimed by customers and 

transported to different countries in 

Europe. Germany is the location of the 

customer for most of these shipments. 

Thus, because sales to Germany are 

subsumed in any shipments to the 

Netherlands, the petition allegation 

covered sales to Germany. As such, 

there was sufficient evidence on the 

record to continue our sales–below-cost 

investigation once we had determined 

that Germany was the appropriate 

comparison market. 

This decision is consistent with 

Department precedent. See, e.g., 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value; Aramid Fiber 

Formed of Poly–Phenylene 

Terephthalamide From the Netherlands, 

58 FR 65699 (December 16, 1993) 

unchanged in the final determination, 

(Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Aramid Fiber 

Formed of Poly–Phenylene 

Terephthalamide From the Netherlands, 

59 FR 23684 (May 6, 1994)), in which 

the Department ‘‘reanalyzed petitioner’s 

sales below cost allegation in light of 

our determination’’ that the Netherlands 

was not the proper comparison market, 

and determined that there was 

‘‘sufficient evidence on the record to 

continue our sales below cost 

investigation.’’

After reviewing San Miguel’s section 

A response, we determined that 

Argentina was in fact a viable market for 

that company, and notified parties that 

the previous sales–below-cost allegation 

was no longer viable for San Miguel. See 

Letter from the Department to San 

Miguel (December 20, 2007). Petitioner 

subsequently filed a timely new sales–

below-cost allegation on January 24, 

2007 with respect to San Miguel’s sales 

in Argentina. After determining that the 

new allegation demonstrated reasonable 

grounds to believe that San Miguel’s 

sales in Argentina were below cost, we 

initiated a new sales–below-cost 

investigation of that company. See 

Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Director, Office 6, ‘‘Petitioner’s 

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for S.A. San Miguel 

A.G.I.C.I.y F.’’ (February 12, 2007). 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated a weighted–

average COP based on the sum of the 

cost of materials and fabrication for the 

foreign like product, plus amounts for 

the home market general and 

administrative (G&A) expenses, 

including interest expenses and packing 

expenses. For Citrusvil, we relied on the 

COP data submitted in its cost 

questionnaire responses, except as 

noted below: 

• We adjusted the fresh lemon input 

costs to value the lemons 

transferred from the packing to 

processing plant at the average fresh 

lemon cost actually incurred or 

paid based on the company’s 

normal books and records. 

• For reporting to the Department, 

Citrusvil allocated fresh lemon 

costs to lemon co–products using a 

net realizable value (NRV) 

methodology. We note that an NRV 

methodology relies upon relative 

sales values at the split off point 

(i.e., when separate products are 

first identifiable in the production 

process) as a means of allocating 

joint costs when multiple products 

are processed simultaneously from 

the same raw material. However, 

because the fresh lemon cost 

allocation is based on sales values 

and because the Petitioner has 

alleged that Citrusvil’s POI sales 

values may not represent a fair 

value for the merchandise under 

consideration, we revised the 

company’s reported allocation to 

rely upon sales data prior to the 

POI, i.e., a period for which no 

allegation of dumping has been 

lodged (in this case, July 1, 2004 to 

June 30, 2005). 

• We revised the reported G&A 

expense rate to include other 

operating expenses. 

For further details regarding these 

adjustments, see Memorandum to Neal 

M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Determination - Citrusvil, S.A.’’ (April 

19, 2007) (Citrusvil COP Memo). 

For San Miguel, we relied on the COP 

data submitted in its cost questionnaire 

responses, except as noted below: 

• We revised San Miguel’s reported 

lemon costs. For self–grown 

lemons, we allocated the growing 

costs to the lemons based on 

volume. For self–grown and 

purchased lemons harvested by San 

Miguel, we valued the harvesting 

costs at the actual costs incurred by 

San Miguel. For purchased lemons 

either harvested by San Miguel or 

delivered by the suppliers, we used 

the actual POI average purchase 

price. 

• We recalculated the by–product 

offset amount by using the POI 

production quantities instead of the 

POI sales quantities 

• For reporting to the Department, San 

Miguel allocated fresh lemon costs 

to lemon co–products using an NRV 

methodology. Because the fresh 

lemon cost allocation is based on 

sales values and because the 

Petitioner has alleged that San 

Miguel’s POI sales values may not 

represent a fair value for the 

merchandise under consideration, 

we revised the company’s reported 

allocation of fresh lemon costs and 

indirect processing costs to co–

products, which was based on the 

POI sales data, to reflect sales data 

prior to the POI (in this case, July 

1, 2004 to June 30, 2005). 

• We used San Miguel’s company–

wide G&A and net financial 

expense rates instead of the 

industrial division’s G&A and net 

financial expense rates. 

• We revised the company–wide G&A 

and net financial expense rates by 

deducting by–product revenues and 

packing expenses from the cost of 

sales denominator. 

• We made a deduction to COM for 

estimated Reintegro rebates 

received by San Miguel. 

For further details regarding these 

adjustments, see Memorandum to Neal 

M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Determination - San Miguel’’ (April 19, 

2007) (San Miguel COP Memo). 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

We compared the weighted–average 

COPs for both companies to their 

comparison market sales prices of the 

foreign like product, under section 

773(b) of the Act, to determine whether 

these sales had been made at prices 

below the COP within an extended 

period of time (i.e., a period of one year) 

in substantial quantities, and whether 

such prices were sufficient to permit the 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

period of time. On a model–specific 

basis, we compared the COP to the 

German (for Citrusvil) and Argentine 

(for San Miguel) market prices, less any 

applicable movement charges, 

discounts, rebates, and direct and 

indirect selling expenses (excluding 

imputed expenses), commissions, and 

packing. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

during the POI are at prices less than the 

COP, we do not disregard any below–


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20825 

cost sales of that product, because we 

determine that in such instances the 

below–cost sales were not made in 

substantial quantities. Where 20 percent 

or more of the respondent’s sales of a 

given product during the POI are at 

prices less than the COP, we determine 

that the below–cost sales represent 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(1)(A) of the Act. In 

such cases, we also determine whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

would not permit recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

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

the Act. 

We found that more than 20 percent 

of Citrusvil’s comparison market sales of 

a given product during the POI were at 

prices below the COP, and, in addition, 

the below–cost sales of the product were 

at prices which would not permit 

recovery of all costs within a reasonable 

time period, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We therefore 

excluded these sales and used the 

remaining sales, if any, as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

We also found that more than 20 

percent of San Miguel’s comparison 

market sales of a given product during 

the POI were at prices below the COP, 

and, in addition, the below–cost sales of 

the product were at prices which would 

not permit recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable time period, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We 

therefore excluded these sales and used 

the remaining sales, if any, as the basis 

for determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

C. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

Citrusvil 

Citrusvil has an exclusive sales 

agreement with its agent in the German 

market. Due to the nature of the 

arrangement between the two 

companies, pursuant to section 

771(33)(g) of the Act, we preliminarily 

find that Citrusvil and its agent are 

affiliated via an agent–principle 

agreement/relationship. See, e.g., 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

from Taiwan: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 67 FR 6682 

(February 13, 2002) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 23, upheld in Chia Far 

Industrial Factory Co. v. United States, 

343 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1356 (CIT 2004) 

(‘‘when there exists a principal who has 

the potential to control pricing and/or 

the terms of sale through the end–

customer, Commerce will find agency 

and thus affiliation’’). Thus, the 

appropriate sales for comparison 

purposes in this investigation are the 

sales from Citrusvil to the first 

unaffiliated customers in Germany. 

Since much of our analysis with respect 

to the relationship between Citrusvil 

and its agent involves business 

proprietary information, a full 

discussion of the bases for our finding 

of affiliation is set forth in the Citrusvil 

Analysis Memorandum. 

For those sales made directly to the 

customer, with Citrusvil’s agent acting 

as intermediary (the channel 2 sales 

described in the ‘‘Selection of 

Comparison Market’’ section above), the 

price charged by Citrusvil to the 

customer is the starting price. Pursuant 

to section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act, we 

deducted home market freight, 

warehousing and insurance expenses. 

We also made circumstances of sale 

(COS) adjustments reflecting differences 

between direct selling expenses (credit 

expense) incurred on third–country and 

U.S. sales, in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410. We also made adjustments for 

any differences in packing between 

domestic and U.S. sales, pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, and 

any differences between the variable 

costs of the U.S. product and the 

matching home market product (the 

‘‘DIFMER’’ adjustment), pursuant to 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.411. 

For sales made by Citrusvil to its 

affiliated agent (the channel 1 sales 

described in the ‘‘Selection of 

Comparison Market’’ section above), 

which in turn sells to the first 

unaffiliated customer, we find that 

Citrusvil failed to provide the correct 

downstream sales information. Section 

776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an 

interested party or any other person: (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the administering 

authority; (B) fails 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 

of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified as 

provided in section 782(i) of the Act, the 

Department shall, subject to section 

782(d) of the Act, use the facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title. In applying facts otherwise 

available, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that the Department may use 

an inference adverse to the interests of 

a party that has failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with the Department’s requests 

for information. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 

55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002). 

With respect to adverse inferences, 

our practice, as reflected in the 

Statement of Administrative Action, is 

‘‘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.R. Rep. No. 

103–316, (1994) (‘‘SAA’’) at 870. 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See Nippon 

Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 

1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003); 

Antidumping Countervailing Duties: 

Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 

1997). 

With respect to Citrusvil’s channel 1 

sales to Germany, we preliminarily find 

that the application of facts otherwise 

available is appropriate. The 

Department’s original questionnaire, 

issued to Citrusvil on November 20, 

2006, states that ‘‘if you sold to an 

affiliate that resold the merchandise to 

an unaffiliated party in the comparison 

market, report the affiliate’s resales 

during the POI to unaffiliated customers 

rather than your sales to the affiliate.’’

See Department November 20, 2006, 

questionnaire, at B–2. On February 9, 

2007, Petitioner argued that it appeared 

that Citrusvil might be affiliated with its 

German agent. On February 16, 2007, 

we issued a supplemental questionnaire 

in which we requested more detailed 

information on the relationship between 

Citrusvil and its German agent. See 

Department February 16, 2007, General 

Supplemental questionnaire, at 1–3. 

Based on Citrusvil’s response and our 

analysis of the agreement, there was 

sufficient information to indicate 

affiliation. On March 23, 2007, in an 

additional supplemental questionnaire 

to Citrusvil, the Department specifically 

requested that Citrusvil report the 

downstream sales of its German sales 

agent. On April 6, 2007, Citrusvil 

responded that it was not able to obtain 

the requested information from its 

agent. Citrusvil explained that it made 

several attempts (including phone calls 

and e–mails) to convince its agent to 

supply the requested information. 

However, Citrusvil reported that its 

agent was not willing to open its books 

to foreign authorities. See Citrusvil 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
20826 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

April 6, 2007, third supplemental 

section B and C response, at Exhibit 1. 

The use of facts available is warranted 

under 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act as 

Citrusvil and its affiliated agent have 

withheld information requested by the 

Department. 

Moreover, in accordance with section 

776(b) of the Act, we have applied an 

adverse inference for purposes of 

calculating Citrusvil’s channel 1 prices 

in Germany. The record of this 

investigation shows that Citrusvil has 

sufficient control over its agent and the 

sales at issue to comply with our request 

for channel 1 sales information. See 

Citrusvil March 12, 2007, Second 

Supplemental section B and C response, 

at Exhibit 2. These parties are bound 

through an exclusive principle–agent 

relationship, and Citrusvil has indicated 

on the record that it controls the final 

terms of all sales involving its agent, 

including channel 1 sales. See Citrusvil 

January 26, 2007, Supplemental section 

A response, at Exhibit 5. Moreover, 

while Citrusvil argues that it made every 

effort to obtain the necessary 

information, it failed to submit any 

documentary evidence to support its 

claims. For example, in its April 6, 

2007, submission Citrusvil states that it 

sent e–mails to its agent regarding the 

need for this information, but did not 

submit copies of any such e–mails on 

the record of this proceeding. 

The Department has consistently 

demonstrated willingness to 

accommodate Citrusvil’s difficulties in 

collecting requested information in a 

timely manner throughout the course of 

this proceeding. In fact, the Department 

granted Citrusvil an extension to submit 

the downstream sales at issue. See Letter 

from the Department to Citrusvil (April 

2, 2007). Citrusvil, however, failed to 

provide the downstream sales 

information by the extended deadline 

and failed to substantiate its claims that 

it made significant efforts to obtain the 

information. 

Therefore, we conclude that Citrusvil 

has not cooperated to the best of its 

ability with respect to channel 1 sales, 

and thus, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, we have used an adverse 

inference in selecting among the facts 

available with respect to such sales. 

Specifically, we have used the highest 

net price per control number 

(CONNUM) as the basis for normal 

value for all channel 1 sales. Because 

much of our analysis involves business 

proprietary information, a full 

discussion of the bases for our finding 

of affiliation and the specific 

application of partial adverse facts 

available is set forth in the Citrusvil 

Analysis Memorandum. 

As a result, for such sales, the 

Department has relied on facts available 

with an adverse inference. As AFA, to 

determine NV for these sales, the 

Department has used the highest NV per 

CONNUM in lieu of the price paid to 

Citrusvil’s agent. The Department 

intends, however, following this 

preliminary determination, to provide 

an additional opportunity to Citrusvil to 

submit the requested sales information 

to the first unaffiliated customer in 

Germany. 

San Miguel 

For San Miguel, starting with prices 

paid by its Argentine customers, we 

added or subtracted billing adjustments, 

where appropriate, and subtracted early 

payment discounts, Argentine inland 

freight, warehousing, and insurance 

expenses, and a fee paid to the regional 

government of Tucuman. For home 

market sales compared to EP sales, we 

made COS adjustments for differences 

between credit expenses incurred on 

Argentine and U.S. sales in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2) of the Act, for home 

market sales compared to CEP sales, we 

only deducted Argentine credit 

expenses from home market price, 

because U.S. credit expenses were 

deducted from U.S. price, as noted 

above. We also made adjustments for 

any differences in packing between 

domestic and U.S. sales and for DIFMER 

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

the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

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

that, where NV cannot be based on 

comparison market sales, NV may be 

based on constructed value (CV). 

Accordingly, for sales of lemon juice for 

which we could not determine the NV 

based on comparison market sales, 

either because there were no useable 

sales of a comparable product or all 

sales of the comparable products failed 

the COP test, we based NV on CV. 

Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 

CV shall be based on the sum of the cost 

of materials and fabrication for the 

imported merchandise, plus amounts 

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

packing costs. We calculated the cost of 

materials and fabrication based on the 

methodology described in the ‘‘Cost of 

Production Analysis’’ section, above. 

We based SG&A, interest expense, and 

profit on the actual amounts incurred 

and/or realized in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

for consumption in the comparison 

market, in accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. 

For comparison with EP sales, we 

made adjustments to CV for differences 

in COS in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and 773(a)(8) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. For CV compared 

to CEP sales, we only deducted 

domestic direct selling expenses from 

home market price, as U.S. direct selling 

expenses were deducted from U.S. 

price, as noted above. 

E. Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, to the extent 

practicable, we determine NV based on 

sales in the home market at the same 

level of trade (LOT) as U.S. sales. See 19 

CFR 351.412. The NV or CV LOT is the 

level of the starting–price sale in the 

home market or comparison market. For 

EP, the U.S. LOT is based on the starting 

price, which is usually from the 

exporter to the importer. 

To determine whether NV sales are at 

a different LOT than EP sales, we 

examine stages in the marketing process 

and selling functions along the chain of 

distribution between the producer and 

the unaffiliated customer in the home 

market in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.412(c). See, e.g., Light–Walled 

Rectangular Pipe and Tube From 

Mexico: Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 69 FR 

53677 (September 2, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decisions 

Memorandum at Comment 14. If the 

comparison market sales are at a 

different LOT, and the difference affects 

price comparability, as manifested in a 

pattern of consistent price differences 

between the sales on which NV is based 

and comparison market sales at the LOT 

of the export transaction, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 

In the current investigation, Citrusvil 

claimed one LOT in the German market 

and one similar LOT in the U.S. market. 

Citrusvil did not request an LOT 

adjustment. Citrusvil maintains that its 

selling functions do not vary by market. 

Citrusvil’s narrative description of its 

sales and distribution process indicate 

that its sales functions involve 

inventory maintenance, freight service 

arrangements, advertising, negotiating 

sales terms, and arranging for domestic 

and foreign warehousing. It did not 

indicate a significant variance, however, 

among these common expense items 

according to market, channel of 

distribution, customer, or some other 

variable, nor do we see any reason to 

conclude that there is such variance. 

See Citrusvil December 18, 2006 section 

A response, at A–13. Based on the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20827 

selling functions performed, we 

preliminarily determine that Citrusvil 

did not sell at different LOTs in the 

German and U.S. markets. After 

examining the selling functions for the 

one LOT reported in the United States, 

and the one reported LOT reported in 

the German market, we determine that 

these sales were all made at the same 

LOT. 

San Miguel claimed one LOT in the 

Argentine market and one LOT in the 

U.S. market. San Miguel did not request 

an LOT adjustment. Given the selling 

functions chart submitted by San 

Miguel and its narrative description of 

its sales and distribution process, it 

would appear its significant sales 

functions involve negotiating sales and 

delivery, providing customer–specific 

packaging, arranging transportation, and 

arranging for domestic and foreign 

warehousing. It did not indicate a 

significant variance, however, among 

these common expense items according 

to market, channel of distribution, 

customer, or some other variable, nor do 

we see any reason to conclude that there 

is such variance. See San Miguel 

December 14, 2006, section A response, 

at A–15 - A–19. After examining the 

selling functions for the one LOT 

reported in the United States, and the 

one reported LOT reported in the 

Argentine market, we determine that 

these sales were all made at the same 

LOT. 

Currency Conversions 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act based on exchange rates 

in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales, 

as obtained from the Federal Reserve 

Bank (the Department’s preferred source 

for exchange rates). 

Critical Circumstances 

On March 30, 2007, Petitioner filed a 

timely allegation pursuant to section 

733(e) of the Act that critical 

circumstances exist in the antidumping 

duty investigations of lemon juice from 

Argentina and Mexico. In addition, 

Petitioner requested that the Department 

request CBP to compile information on 

an expedited basis regarding entries of 

subject merchandise. See 19 CFR 

351.206(g). In its allegation, Petitioner 

contends that there is a reasonable basis 

to believe or suspect that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

lemon juice from Argentina because the 

importers in this case knew or should 

have known that exporters were selling 

lemon juice at less than fair value and 

that there was likely to be material 

injury by reason of such sales; and that 

there have been a massive imports of 

lemon juice over a relatively short 

period. Since this allegation was filed at 

least 20 days prior to the deadline for 

the Department’s preliminary 

determination, we must issue our 

preliminary critical circumstances 

determination not later than the date of 

the preliminary determination. See 19 

CFR 351.206(c)(2)(i); see also Policy 

Bulletin 98.4; ‘‘Change in Policy 

Regarding Timing of Issuance of Critical 

Circumstances Determinations’’ (63 FR 

55364 (October 15, 1998)) for a further 

discussion of our practice. 

Petitioner contends that, in 

determining whether there is a 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that an importer should have known 

that the exporter was selling lemon juice 

from Argentina at less than fair value, 

the Department normally considers 

margins of 25 percent or more for EP 

sales and 15 percent or more for CEP 

transactions sufficient to impute 

knowledge of dumping. See, e.g., 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 71072, 71076–77 (December 22, 

2003) unchanged in the final 

determination, (Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Wax and Wax/Resin 

Thermal Transfer Ribbons From Japan, 

69 FR 11834 (March 12, 2004)). 

Petitioner contends that the estimated 

dumping margin from the initiation of 

102.46 for Argentina is well above the 

25 percent sufficient to impute 

knowledge. See Initiation Notice. 

Petitioner contends that, in 

determining whether there have been 

massive imports, the Department 

normally considers imports during the 

comparison period that have increased 

15 percent or more compared to the base 

period to be massive. See 19 CFR 

351.206(h)(2). The petition for this case 

was filed on September 21, 2006. 

Petitioner provided import data from 

the ITC’s ‘‘Dataweb’’ (http:// 

dataweb.usitc.gov/) comparing subject 

imports in July through September 2006 

to subject imports in the period October 

through December 2006. Petitioner 

calculated that subject imports from 

Argentina surged 147 percent. See 

Petitioner’s March 30, 2007 Critical 

Circumstances Allegation at 5, Exhibit 

1. 

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. 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: (i) the volume and value 

of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and 

(iii) the share of domestic consumption 

accounted for by the imports. In 

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

that an increase in imports of 15 percent 

during a ‘‘relatively short period’’ of 

time may be considered ‘‘massive.’’

Further, 19 CFR 351.206(i) defines 

‘‘relatively short period’’ as normally 

being the period beginning on the date 

the proceeding begins (i.e., the date the 

petition is filed) and ending at least 

three months later. 

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, e.g., 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Cut–To-Length Carbon Quality Steel 

Plate Products from Indonesia, 64 FR 

41206 (July 29, 1999) unchanged in the 

final determination, (Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products 

from Indonesia, 64 FR 73164 (December 

29, 1999)). With regard to imports of 

lemon juice from Argentina, Petitioner 

makes no specific mention of a history 

of dumping for Argentina. There have 

been no dumping orders issued by the 

United States or by any other country on 

lemon juice from Argentina. For this 

reason, the Department does not find a 

history of injurious dumping of the 

subject merchandise from Argentina 

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 and that there 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
20828 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 

3We intend to issue a supplemental 

questionnaire to Citrusvil requesting that it correct 

the deficiencies and resubmit its data in time for 

verification and use in the final determination. For 

was likely to be material injury by 

reason of such sales in accordance with 

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

Department normally considers margins 

of 25 percent or more for EP sales, or 15 

percent or more for CEP transactions, 

sufficient to impute knowledge of 

dumping. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain Lined 

Paper Products from Indonesia, 71 FR 

15162 (March 27, 2006) unchanged in 

the final determination, (Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from Indonesia, 71 FR 47171 

(August 16, 2006)). 

For Citrusvil and San Miguel, we 

determine that there is a sufficient basis 

to find that the importer should have 

known that the exporter was selling the 

subject merchandise at less than its fair 

value pursuant to section 

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

calculated margins are greater than 25 

percent for both companies’ sales. 

Consequently, we have imputed 

knowledge of dumping with regard to 

both respondents. 

Regarding the companies subject to 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate, it is the 

Department’s normal practice to 

conduct its critical circumstances 

analysis for these companies based on 

the experience of investigated 

companies. See, e.g., 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). However, 

the Department does not automatically 

extend an affirmative critical 

circumstances determination to 

companies covered by the ‘‘all others’’

rate. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils from Japan, 64 FR 30574 

(June 8, 1999) (Stainless Steel from 

Japan). Instead, the Department 

considers the traditional critical 

circumstances criteria with respect to 

the companies covered by the ‘‘all 

others’’ rate. Consistent with Stainless 

Steel from Japan, the Department has, in 

this case, applied the traditional critical 

circumstances criteria to the ‘‘all others’’

category for the antidumping 

investigation of certain lemon juice from 

Argentina. 

The dumping margin for the ‘‘all 

others’’ category in the instant case 

exceeds the 25 percent threshold 

necessary to impute knowledge of 

dumping. Therefore, we find there is a 

reasonable basis to impute to importers, 

knowledge of dumping for the 

companies covered by the ‘‘all others’’

rate. Consequently, we preliminarily 

find that knowledge of dumping exists 

with regard to the companies subject to 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate. 

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, e.g., Stainless Steel from 

Japan, 64 FR at 30578. On November 16, 

2006, the ITC preliminarily found 

material injury to the domestic industry 

due to imports of lemon juice from 

Argentina and 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. 

In determining whether there are 

‘‘massive imports’’ over a ‘‘relatively 

short period,’’ pursuant to section 

733(e)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department 

normally compares the import volumes 

of the subject merchandise for at least 

three months immediately preceding the 

filing of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘base 

period’’) to a comparable period of at 

least three months following the filing 

of the petition (i.e., the ‘‘comparison 

period’’). Imports normally will be 

considered massive when imports 

during the comparison period have 

increased by 15 percent or more 

compared to imports during the base 

period. 

The Department requested and 

obtained from both respondents 

monthly shipment data from June 2006 

through March 2007 in order to 

determine whether imports were 

massive. We also relied on U.S. import 

data found on the ITC’s Dataweb for 

imports through January 2007 (i.e., the 

latest month for which complete data 

exist at the time of this preliminary 

determination). 

We have used a period of four months 

as the period for comparison in 

preliminarily determining whether 

imports of the subject merchandise have 

been massive. We believe that a fourmonth period is most appropriate as the 

basis for analysis because using four 

months captures all data available at 

this time, based on October 2006 as the 

beginning of the comparison period. 

Additionally, a four-month period 

properly reflects the ‘‘relatively short 

period’’ set forth in the statute for 

determining whether imports have been 

massive. See section 733(e)(1)(B) of the 

Act. It is our practice to base the 

critical–circumstances analysis on all 

available data, using base and 

comparison periods of no less than three 

months. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India, 

69 FR 47111 (Aug. 4, 2004) unchanged 

in the final determination, (Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India, 

69 FR 76916 (December 23, 2004)); and 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Negative 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (Apr. 16, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. Therefore, 

we have used all available data in our 

critical–circumstances analysis for the 

preliminary determination. 

San Miguel provided shipment data 

from June 2006 through January 2007. 

San Miguel’s shipment data indicate 

that its shipments increased by more 

than 15 percent between the four-month 

base and comparison periods. However, 

San Miguel argued that this increase is 

due largely to issues of ‘‘timing.’’ Our 

analysis of San Miguel’s 2005 and 2006 

monthly shipment data leads us to reject 

this argument. However, because the 

details of our analysis are business 

proprietary, complete discussion can be 

found in the Memorandum to Barbara 

E. Tillman, Director, Office 6, ‘‘Critical 

Circumstances Allegation,’’ (April 19, 

2007) (Critical Circumstances 

Memorandum). Based on our analysis of 

San Miguel’s shipment data for 2005 

and 2006, we have determined that San 

Miguel’s shipments increased by more 

than 15 percent between the four-month 

base and comparison periods. See 

Critical Circumstances Memorandum. 

Citrusvil reported shipment data for 

June 2006 through March 2007. 

Citrusvil’s reported shipment data do 

not indicate that its shipments increased 

by more than 15 percent between the 

four-month base and comparison 

periods. However, our analysis of 

Citrusvil’s reported shipment data leads 

us to question the reliability of that 

data.3 For a discussion of the BPI details 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 80 / Thursday, April 26, 2007 / Notices 20829 

the final determination, we will reevaluate our 

critical circumstances determination for Citrusvil 

and the companies subject to the ‘‘all others’’ rate 

in light of Citrusvil’s revised shipment data. 

of this analysis, see Critical 

Circumstances Memorandum. Because 

we have determined that Citrusvil’s 

shipment data are unreliable, we have 

relied on ITC data to determine whether 

Citrusvil’s imports increased by more 

than 15 percent between the four-month 

base and comparison periods. See 

Critical Circumstances Memorandum; 

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, 

49565–66 (August 24, 2005) (Orange 

Juice from Brazil) (basing the evaluation 

of massive imports on ITC Dataweb 

information for all companies because 

company–specific information was not 

submitted with sufficient time to use in 

the analysis). We adjusted the ITC data 

to account for shipments of lemon juice 

exported by San Miguel, because San 

Miguel’s information is the only reliable 

company–specific information on the 

record with which we could make a 

relevant adjustment. After adjusting the 

data to account for shipments of lemon 

juice exported by San Miguel, the data 

indicate an increase in imports greater 

than 15 percent. See Critical 

Circumstances Memorandum. As such, 

we find that imports have increased by 

more than 15 percent between the fourmonth base and comparison periods. 

We have examined the information on 

the record to determine whether the 

increase in San Miguel’s and Citrusvil’s 

imports into the United States during 

the comparison period are 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 imports do not show a pattern of 

seasonality. See Critical Circumstances 

Memorandum. As such, we 

preliminarily determine that the surge 

in imports is not due to seasonality. 

As noted above, the Department does 

not automatically extend an affirmative 

critical circumstances determination to 

companies covered by the ‘‘all others’’

rate. Therefore, with respect to whether 

imports were massive in this case for 

the ‘‘all others’’ category, we considered 

the experience of Citrusvil and San 

Miguel. As discussed above, we 

preliminarily find that imports from 

Citrusvil and San Miguel have 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 massive 

imports of lemon juice in the all–others 

category. In addition, we also examined 

ITC data for the four-month base and 

comparison periods noted above. See 

Orange Juice from Brazil, 70 FR at 

49565–66. As explained above, we 

adjusted the ITC data to account for 

shipments of lemon juice exported by 

San Miguel. After this adjustment, the 

ITC data indicate an increase in imports 

greater than 15 percent. See Critical 

Circumstances Memorandum. 

In summary, we preliminarily find 

that Citrusvil, San Miguel and the 

companies subject to the ‘‘all others’’

rate satisfy the imputed knowledge of 

injury and dumping criteria under 

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

the massive imports criterion under 

section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act. Given 

the analysis summarized above, we 

preliminarily determine that critical 

circumstances exist for all imports of 

lemon juice into the United States 

produced in and exported from 

Argentina. 

Verification 

In accordance with section 782(i) of 

the Act, we will verify the questionnaire 

responses of Citrusvil and San Miguel 

before making our final determination. 

Preliminary Determination 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted–average dumping 

margins exist for the period July 1, 2005 

through June 30, 2006: 

Producer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percentage) 

Citrusvil ....................... 128.50% 

San Miguel .................. 85.64% 

All Others .................... 113.52% 

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 Argentina that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. Additionally, because we have 

made an affirmative preliminary 

determination of critical circumstances, 

we will instruct CBP to suspend 

liquidation of entries made on or after 

90 days prior to the date of 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 

exports from the mandatory respondents 

will be the rates we have determined in 

this preliminary determination as 

outlined above; (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 

113.52 percent. These suspension of 

liquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

Disclosure 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b), the Department will disclose 

to interested parties the calculations 

performed in this preliminary 

determination within five days of the 

date of the public announcement. 

Public Comment 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary 

determination. Interested parties may 

submit case briefs either 50 days after 

the date of publication of this notice or 

ten days after the issuance of the 

verification reports, whichever is later. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i). Rebuttal 

briefs, the content of which is limited to 

the issues raised in the case briefs, must 

be filed within five days after the 

deadline for the submission of case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). A list of 

authorities used, a table of contents, and 

an executive summary of issues should 

accompany any briefs submitted to the 

Department. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2), 

(d)(2). Executive summaries should be 

limited to five pages total, including 

footnotes. See id. 

In accordance with section 774 of the 

Act, we will hold a public hearing, if 

requested, to afford interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on arguments 

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. If a 

request for a hearing is made, we will 

tentatively hold the hearing two days 

after the deadline for submission of 

rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, at 

a time and in a room to be determined. 

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing 

48 hours before the scheduled date. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing, or to participate in a hearing 

if one is requested, must submit a 

written request to the Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 

1870, within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. Requests 

should contain: 1) the party’s name, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES
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