5798 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

remaining series of meetings or portions

thereof will be open to the public.

A copy of the Notice of Determination

to close meetings or portions of

meetings of the Committee is available

for public inspection and copying in the

Central Reference and Records

Inspection Facility, Room 6020, U.S.

Department of Commerce, Washington,

D.C. 20230. For further information or

copies of the minutes, contact Lee Ann

Carpenter on (202) 482–2583.

Dated: February 4, 1997.

Kathleen M. Grove,

Acting Director, Technical Advisory

Committee Unit.

[FR Doc. 97–3127 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DT–M

International Trade Administration

[A–351–605]

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review: Frozen

Concentrated Orange Juice From

Brazil

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests

from the respondents, Branco Peres

Citrus, S.A. (Branco) and CTM Citrus

S.A., formerly Citropectina (CTM), the

Department of Commerce (the

Department) has conducted an

administrative review of the

antidumping order on frozen

concentrated orange juice from Brazil.

The review covers merchandise

exported to the United States by these

two respondents during the period of

May 1, 1992, through April 30, 1993.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Brinkmann or Greg Thompson Office of

Antidumping Investigations, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–5288 or (202) 482–

3003, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History

On August 14, 1995, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of its 1992–93

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on Frozen

Concentrated Orange Juice (FCOJ) from

Brazil (60 FR 41874). On August 25,

1995, both respondents submitted case

briefs. The petitioners submitted a

rebuttal brief on August 29, 1995. There

was no request for a hearing. The

Department has now conducted this

review in accordance with section 751

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(the Tariff Act). The final margins for

Branco and CTM are listed below in the

section ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’

Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Statute and to the

Department’s regulations are in

reference to the provisions as they

existed on December 31, 1994.

Scope of the Review

Imports covered by this review are

shipments of FCOJ from Brazil. The

merchandise is currently classifiable

under item 2009.11.00 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

United States (HTSUS). Although the

HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and Customs purposes, our

written description of the scope of this

review is dispositive.

Fair Value Comparisons

We compared the United States price

(USP) to the foreign market value

(FMV), as specified in the ‘‘United

States Price’’ and ‘‘Foreign Market

Value’’ sections of this notice.

United States Price

We calculated USP according to the

methodology described in our

preliminary results.

Foreign Market Value (FMV)

As stated in the preliminary results,

we found that the home market was not

viable for either respondent and based

FMV on third country FOB sales or

offers for sale.

We calculated FMV according to the

methodology described in our

preliminary results.

Interested Party Comments

Comment 1: Packing Cost for Branco

Branco contends that the Department

mistakenly added U.S. packing costs to

the third-country price used to calculate

foreign market value.

The petitioners contend that the

Department adjusted the prices to make

an accurate comparison of net prices,

and that the Department should

continue with this approach in the final

results.

Department Position

We agree with the petitioners. It is

Department practice to compare exfactory packed prices. In order to adjust

for differences in packing expenses, the

Department subtracts the comparison

market packing from the FMV and adds

U.S. packing to the FMV (see Final

Results of Antidumping Administrative

Review Roller Chain, Other Than

Bicycle, from Japan, 60 FR 62387–89,

December 6, 1995).

Comment 2: Use of Shorter Periods

In the preliminary results, we

confirmed that there is a direct linkage

between respondents’ prices in this

review period and the minimum export

price (MEP) which is based on the price

of FCOJ on the New York Cotton

Exchange (NYCE) futures market. Given

the price volatility of the MEP during

this review period, we adopted the

methodology used in past FCOJ reviews

of using FMV periods that are shorter

than a month. Insofar as the fluctuations

in the MEP reached up to 51% in a

given month for this review period, we

determined that it was necessary for

comparison periods to be based on any

change in the MEP throughout the

continuum of the period of review

(POR).

CTM states that the Department has

retroactively defined the time periods

for price-to-price comparisons. The

respondent further states that this

approach was not well considered, and

urges the Department to rely on monthly

weighted average comparisons.

The petitioners contend that the MEP

has been used as a tool to define shorter

FMV comparison periods in three prior

administrative reviews of FCOJ. The

petitioners further contend that this

methodology should, in theory, be a

more accurate measure of whether lessthan-fair-value pricing has occurred in

this volatile commodity market.

Department Position

We agree with the petitioners that

changes in the MEP have been used in

past reviews to establish FMV

comparison periods shorter than one

month, and that using the MEP should,

in theory, be a more accurate measure

in a volatile market. The Department

first used shorter FMV periods in the

third review because a severe freeze in

Florida had a dramatic effect on the

price for FCOJ on the NYCE futures

market and, thus, the MEP. In that

review, shorter FMV periods were

defined by changes of ten percent in the

MEP in a given month. While the same

methodology was used in the fourth and

fifth reviews, the reason for using it was

not discussed. In the sixth review, we

have continued to use the MEP to

determine shorter FMV periods,

however, we have refined the

methodology in the following manner.

First, since FCOJ commodity prices on

the NYCE fluctuate on a continuum,

unrelated to the starting and ending of
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices 5799

months, we based the periods on

changes throughout the review period

and not just changes in a given month.

Second, we believe that comparison

periods based on any change in the

MEP, as opposed to a ten percent

change, provide us with a more accurate

analysis, given the significant price

fluctuations in this review period. For

further discussion of this issue, see the

preliminary results concurrence

memorandum, dated August 8, 1995.

Comment 3: Date of Sale for CTM

CTM contends that the Department

incorrectly used the date of issuance of

the export license as the date of sale.

CTM further contends that the date of

shipment is its appropriate date of sale.

The petitioners state that the use of

the date of issuance of the export license

is harmonious with the Department’s

contemporaneous sales methodology

(i.e., price is set as of that date

regardless of when the merchandise is

shipped). The petitioners also state that

using this methodology allows the

Department to match U.S. with thirdcountry sales which were made under

similar market pressures (i.e.,

hyperinflation and rapid FCOJ price

fluctuations in the NYCE futures

market).

Department Position

We agree with the petitioners. In its

September 9, 1994, submission, CTM

stated that while the price for the

transaction is set as of the date of

issuance of the export license, the

quantity is not fixed until the date of the

shipment. However, after reviewing

CTM’s export documents and invoices

for all third-country and U.S. sales made

during the POR, it is clear that the terms

of sale were established on the date of

issuance of the export license. With one

exception, a quantity difference of less

than one percent, the terms of sale on

the export license matched the terms on

the relevant invoice. (see preliminary

results concurrence memorandum).

Comment 4: Use of Exchange Rates for

CTM

CTM contends that in converting the

inland freight expense for U.S.

shipments to dollars, the Department

should use the exchange rate in effect

on the date of payment of these

expenses.

Department Position

We agree with the respondent that, on

occasion, when calculating margins for

hyperinflationary economies, charges

and adjustments have been converted to

dollars based on the exchange rate in

effect on the date the charge becomes

payable. However, because of the

administrative burden associated with

using this methodology, the

Department’s preference is to convert

charges on the date of shipment, the

closest approximation to the date the

charges become payable. In this

instance, the issue is moot because

information concerning the dates that

the charges became payable is not on

the record.

Comment 5: Comparison Periods

CTM states that if the Department

were to use the 90/60 rule to define

comparison periods, there would be no

need to use the MEP as a surrogate for

establishing FMV because there would

be actual sales which could be used for

comparison purposes.

The petitioners state that using the

90/60 rule is inconsistent with the logic

of using shorter periods in the first

place—namely, to avoid distortions in

margin calculation due to fluctuations

in commodity prices.

Department Position

We agree with the petitioners that

using the 90/60 rule would ignore the

reason for using shorter periods in the

first place. Furthermore, we have

confirmed that there is a strict

correlation between the MEP, a longstanding program established by the

Brazilian FCOJ producers, and the

prices to the U.S. and third-country

sales of both respondents. Accordingly,

we have continued to rely on the

methodology used in the preliminary

determination to avoid distortion in the

dumping margin calculations.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our analysis of the

comments received, we determine that

the following weighted-average margins

exist for the period of May 1, 1992

through April 30, 1993:

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Branco ....................................... 2.52

CTM .......................................... 0.98

All Others .................................. 1.96

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

USP and FMV may vary from the

percentage stated above. The

Department will issue appraisement

instructions directly to the Customs

Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirement will be effective for all

shipments of FCOJ from Brazil entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date of the final results of this

administrative review, as provided by

section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act: (1)

the cash deposit rate for the reviewed

companies will be as outlined above; (2)

for merchandise exported by

manufacturers or exporters not covered

in this review but covered in previous

reviews or the original less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) investigation, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the rate

published in the most recent final

results or determination for which the

manufacturer or exporter received a

company-specific rate; (3) if the exporter

is not a firm covered in this review, an

earlier review, or the LTFV

investigation, but the manufacturer is,

the cash deposit rate will be that

established for the manufacturer of the

merchandise in the final results of this

review, earlier reviews, or the LTFV

investigation, whichever is the most

recent; (4) the cash deposit rate for all

other manufacturers or exporters will be

1.96 percent, the ‘‘all other’’ rate

established in the original LTFV

investigation by the Department (52 FR

8324, March 17, 1987), in accordance

with the decisions of the Court of

International Trade in Floral Trade

Council v. United States, Slip Op. 993–

79, and Federal-Mogul Corporation v.

United States, Slip Op. 93–83.

These cash deposit requirements,

when imposed, shall remain in effect

until publication of the final results of

the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 to

file a certificate regarding the

reimbursement of antidumping duties

prior to liquidation of the relevant

entries during this review period.

Failure to comply with this requirement

could result in the Secretary’s

presumption that reimbursement of

antidumping duties occurred in the

subsequent assessment of double

antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as the only

reminder to parties subject to

administrative protective order (APO) of

their responsibility concerning the

disposition of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Timely written

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and terms of the APO is a sanctionable

violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section 751(a)(1)

of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1))

and 19 CFR 353.22.
5800 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 1997 / Notices

Dated: January 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3101 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–201–802]

Gray Portland Cement and Clinker

From Mexico; Amended Final Results

of Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review in Accordance With Court

Decision

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results

of antidumping duty administrative

review in accordance with court

decision.

SUMMARY: On August 1, 1996, the Court

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the

Federal Circuit) affirmed the July 12,

1995 decision of the Court of

International Trade (CIT) in The Ad Hoc

Committee of AZ–NM–TX–FL Producers

of Gray Portland Cement v. United

States, Slip Op. 95–125 (CIT 1995) (Ad

Hoc). In its July 12, 1995 opinion, the

CIT affirmed the Department of

Commerce’s (the Department’s) results

of redetermination pursuant to remand,

and prior remand determinations of the

Department, of the final results of the

first administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on gray

portland cement and clinker from

Mexico. The Federal Circuit’s ruling

represents a ‘‘final and conclusive’’

court decision ‘‘not in harmony’’ with

the Department’s original

determination. As a result of these

remand redeterminations, the

Department found a dumping margin for

respondent Cemex, S.A. de C.V.

(Cemex) for the period April 12, 1990

through July 31, 1991 of 61.42 percent.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 7, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert James or John Kugelman, Office

Eight, Antidumping and Countervailing

Duty Enforcement Group III,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue N.W.,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–5222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 28, 1993, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

final results of its first administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on gray portland cement and clinker

from Mexico (58 FR 25803 (April 28,

1993)). In those final results the

Department set forth its determination

of the weighted-average margins for the

two respondent companies for the

period April 12, 1990 through July 31,

1991. Petitioners and Cemex

subsequently filed separate complaints

with the CIT challenging the final

results; these complaints were later

consolidated. Thereafter, the CIT

published an Order and Opinion dated

September 26, 1994 in Ad Hoc

Committee v. United States, Ct. No. 93–

05–00273, Slip Op. 94–151, remanding

the Department’s final results with

instructions to (1) consider CEMEX’s

claimed deductions for pre-sale home

market transportation costs under the

circumstances-of-sale (COS) provision

of the Department’s regulations, (2)

apply a value-added-tax (VAT)

adjustment consistent with the

methodology established in Torrington

Co. v. United States, 853 F. Supp. 446

(CIT 1994), (3) reclassify certain

transactions designated as exporter’s

sales price transactions and reconsider

the selection of best information

available (BIA) for certain other sales,

and (4) reconsider the selection of BIA

data for missing added material costs.

On January 5, 1995, the Department

filed its remand results with the CIT.

Cemex challenged certain aspects of the

Department’s remand results, including

our treatment of VAT.

On May 15, 1995, the CIT ordered a

second remand which affirmed the

Department’s treatment of Cemex’s presale transportation expenses and its

application of the so-called Torrington

methodology for calculating VAT. The

CIT, however, directed the Department

to consider different VAT rates. Ad Hoc

Committee v. United States, Slip Op.

95–91 (CIT May 15, 1995). The

Department filed its redetermination

with the Court on June 13, 1995. The

CIT, on July 12, 1995, affirmed the

Department’s remand results and issued

a judgment that Cemex’s January 25,

1995 challenge on the issue of VAT

methodology was untimely filed and,

therefore, moot.

Cemex appealed from the CIT’s July

12, 1995 decision in Ad Hoc affirming

the Department’s redetermination. This

appeal challenged the CIT’s ruling that

Cemex had waived its right in this case

to challenge Commerce’s application of

the Torrington methodology for

calculating VAT, and that Cemex’s presale transportation expenses were not

deductible in the calculation of foreign

market value. Consistent with the

Federal Circuit’s decision in Timken

Company v. United States, 893 F.2d 337

(Fed. Cir. 1990), on October 12, 1995,

the Department published a ‘‘Notice of

Court Decision’’ in the Federal Register

which suspended liquidation of the

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption until there was a ‘‘final

and conclusive’’ decision in this case

(60 FR 53163).

On August 1, 1996, the Federal

Circuit issued its decision affirming the

earlier rulings of the CIT (Appeal No.

95–1485, Fed. Cir. August 1, 1996). On

October 17, 1996, the Federal Circuit

issued its mandate. The Federal

Circuit’s ruling constitutes a ‘‘final and

conclusive’’ decision in this case which

is ‘‘not in harmony’’ with the

Department’s original determination.

Accordingly, we have prepared these

amended final results and will proceed

to issue liquidation instructions to the

Customs Service.

Amended Final Results of Review

In its April 29, 1993 Final Results of

Administrative Review, the Department

calculated a weighted-average margin

for Cemex for the period April 12, 1990

through July 31, 1991 of 30.74 percent.

As a result of the Department’s

redeterminations on court remand, we

have determined the weighted-average

dumping margin for Cemex for the

period April 12, 1990 through July 31,

1991 to be 61.42 percent. The

Department will instruct the Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties on

all appropriate entries, and will issue

appraisement instructions accordingly.

This notice is published in accordance

with section 751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act

(19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR

353.22(c)(8).

Dated: January 31, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–3102 Filed 2–6–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–401–040]

Stainless Steel Plate From Sweden

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review; Time Limits

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of extension of time

limits.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is extending the time

limit for the preliminary results of the

review of the antidumping finding on

stainless steel plate from Sweden. The

review covers two manufacturers/