21724 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

address information maintained in the 

MAF/TIGER System. 

As part of this renewal request, we 

will follow the protocol of past generic 

clearances: We will submit clearance 

requests at least two weeks before the 

planned start of each activity that give 

more exact details, examples of forms 

and related materials, and final 

estimates of respondent burden. We also 

will file a year-end summary with OMB 

after the close of each fiscal year giving 

results of each activity conducted. 

The following paragraphs describe the 

categories of activities to be included 

under the clearance. 

Geographic Support System Initiative 

(GSS–I)—The GSS–I is an integrated 

program designed to improve address 

coverage, obtain continual spatial 

feature updates, and enhance the quality 

assessment and measurement for the 

MTDB. The GSS–I builds on the 

accomplishments of the last decade’s 

MAF/TIGER Enhancement Program (the 

MTEP) which redesigned the MAF/ 

TIGER Database (MTDB), improved the 

positional accuracy of TIGER spatial 

features, and emphasized quality 

measurement. The Census Bureau plans 

on a continual update process for the 

MAF/TIGER System throughout the 

decade to support Census Bureau 

surveys, including the American 

Community Survey. Major participants 

are the U.S. Census Bureau with tribal, 

state, and local governments. The 

Census Bureau will contact tribal, state, 

and local governments to obtain files 

containing their address and spatial 

data, to explore data exchange 

opportunities, and share best practices. 

Redistricting Data Program—The 2010 

Census Redistricting Data Program is 

established in accordance with the 

provisions of Title 13 U.S.C. 141(C) and 

provides the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico the opportunity to specify 

the small geographic areas for which 

they wish to receive decennial census 

population totals for the purpose of 

reapportionment and redistricting. The 

law also requires that by April 1 of the 

year following the decennial census the 

Secretary of Commerce will furnish 

State officials or their designee(s) with 

population counts for standard census 

tabulation areas (e.g. counties, cities, 

census blocks, and Congressional 

districts) and if provided by the states, 

legislative districts and voting districts. 

The Census Bureau will conduct 

Phase 4 and Phase 5 of the 2010 Census 

Redistricting Data Program. In Phase 4 

of the 2010 Redistricting Data Program, 

states submit new plans for updated 

congressional and state legislative 

districts to re-tabulate the 2010 Census 

data to these new redistricted 

boundaries. This phase is scheduled for 

2012 and into 2013. Changes to 

congressional and state legislative 

boundaries that might result from 

further redistricting will be collected in 

2014 and in 2016. Phase 5 of the 

Redistricting Program is the evaluation 

of the program and the final 

recommendations for the 2020 Census. 

School District Review Program 

(SDRP)—The Census Bureau creates 

special tabulations of decennial census 

data by school district geography. These 

tabulations provide detailed 

demographic characteristics of the 

nation’s public school systems and offer 

one of the largest single sources of 

children’s demographic characteristics 

currently available. Information is 

distributed through the National Center 

for Education Statistics (NCES). 

The SDRP, conducted by the Census 

Bureau every two years on behalf of the 

Department of Education, is of vital 

importance for each state’s allocation 

under Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act as amended 

by the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001, Public Law 107–110. The school 

district information obtained through 

this program, along with the 2010 

Census population and income data, 

current population estimates, and 

tabulations of administrative records 

data, are used in forming the Census 

Bureau’s estimates of the number of 

children aged 5 through 17 in lowincome families for each school district. 

These estimates of the number of 

children in low-income families 

residing within each school district are 

the basis of the Title 1 allocation for 

each school district. 

The scope of the SDRP is for state 

officials to review the Census Bureau’s 

current school district information and 

to provide the Census Bureau with 

updates and corrections to the school 

district names and Federal Local 

Education Agency (LEA) identification 

numbers, school district boundaries, 

and the grade ranges for which a school 

district is financially responsible. This 

includes updating unified, secondary, 

and elementary school districts. 

The list above is not exhaustive of all 

activities that may be performed under 

this generic clearance. We will follow 

the approved procedure when 

submitting any additional activities not 

specifically listed here. 

All activities described above directly 

support the Census Bureau’s efforts to 

maintain its address and geographic 

database in partnership with tribal, 

state, and local governments 

nationwide. Because tribal, state, and 

local governments have current 

knowledge of, and data about, where 

housing growth and change are 

occurring in their jurisdictions, their 

input into the overall development of 

the address list for the Census Bureau 

makes a vital contribution. Similarly, 

those governments are in the best 

position to work with local geographic 

boundaries, and they benefit from 

accurate address and geographic data. 

Affected Public: State, local or Tribal 

Governments. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Voluntary. 

Legal Authority: Title 13 United States 

Code, Sections 16, 141, and 193. 

OMB Desk Officer: Brian HarrisKojetin, (202) 395–7314. 

Copies of the above information 

collection proposal can be obtained by 

calling or writing Jennifer Jessup, 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, (202) 482–0336, Department of 

Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 

jjessup@doc.gov). 

Written comments and 

recommendations for the proposed 

information collection should be sent 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice to Brian Harris-Kojetin, OMB 

Desk Officer either by fax (202–395– 

7245) or email (bharrisk@omb.eop.gov). 

Dated: April 6, 2012. 

Glenna Mickelson, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8672 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–07–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–840] 

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and 

Preliminary No Shipment 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the 

petitioners and three producers/ 

exporters of the subject merchandise, 

the Department of Commerce (the 

Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

orange juice (OJ) from Brazil with 

respect to four producers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States. This is the fifth period of review 

(POR), covering March 1, 2010, through 

February 28, 2011. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21725 

1See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Orange 

Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 12183 (Mar. 9, 2006) (OJ 

Order). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 11197 

(Mar. 1, 2011). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 

23546 (Apr. 27, 2011) (Initiation Notice). 

4See Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 65496, 65497 (Oct. 21, 2011). 

5See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of 

the Weighted Average Dumping Margin and 

Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Duty 

Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (Feb. 

14, 2012). (Final Modification). 

6We note that we did not apply the Final 

Modification dumping margin calculation 

methodology for purposes of these preliminary 

results. Per the Final Modification, the new 

methodology will be applied in reviews for which 

the preliminary results are scheduled to be issued 

more than 60 days after the date of publication of 

the Final Modification, (i.e., April 16, 2012). 

7As discussed below, we preliminarily find that 

Louis Dreyfus is the successor-in-interest to Coinbra 

Frutesp. See the ‘‘Successor-in Interest’’ section of 

this notice. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that sales to the United States have been 

made below normal value (NV), and, 

therefore, are subject to antidumping 

duties. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Blaine Wiltse or Hector Rodriguez, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6345 or (202) 482– 

0629, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In March 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on OJ from 

Brazil.1 Subsequently, on March 1, 

2011, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on OJ from 

Brazil for the period March 1, 2010, 

through February 28, 2011.2

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2), in March 2011, the 

Department received requests to 

conduct an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on OJ from 

Brazil from three producers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise: Fischer S.A. 

Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura 

(Fischer); Louis Dreyfus Commodities 

Agroindustrial S.A. (Louis Dreyfus); and 

Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. (Cutrale). In its 

request for review, Louis Dreyfus 

claimed that it is the successor-ininterest to a former producer/exporter of 

OJ, Coinbra Frutesp S.A. (Coinbra 

Frutesp). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), also in March 2011, the 

Department received requests to 

conduct an administrative review for 

Cutrale and Fischer from the petitioners 

(Florida Citrus Mutual and Citrus 

World, Inc.) and Southern Gardens 

Citrus Processing Corporation (Southern 

Gardens), a domestic interested party. 

Additionally, in March 2011, Southern 

Gardens requested that the Department 

also conduct an administrative review 

for Coinbra Frutesp and Montecitrus 

Trading S.A. (Montecitrus). 

In April 2011, the Department 

initiated an administrative review for all 

five companies (i.e., Cutrale, Coinbra 

Frutesp, Fischer, Louis Dreyfus, and 

Montecitrus).3

In May 2011, we solicited information 

from Louis Dreyfus regarding its claim 

that it is the successor-in-interest to 

Coinbra Frutesp. Louis Dreyfus supplied 

this information in the same month. 

Also in May 2011, we received a 

statement from Montecitrus that it had 

no shipments of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR, and 

we issued questionnaires to Cutrale, 

Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus. 

In May and June 2011, we received 

responses to section A of the 

Department’s questionnaire (i.e., the 

section related to general information), 

as well as responses to sections B and 

C of the questionnaire (i.e., the sections 

covering sales in the home market and 

United States) from Cutrale, Fischer, 

and Louis Dreyfus. We also received 

responses from Cutrale and Fischer to 

section D of the questionnaire (i.e., the 

section covering cost of production 

(COP) and constructed value (CV)) in 

June 2011. 

In July 2011, the petitioners filed a 

company-specific sales-below-cost 

allegation for Louis Dreyfus. The 

Department initiated a sales-below-cost 

investigation for Louis Dreyfus in this 

month, and we instructed Louis Dreyfus 

to respond to section D of the 

Department’s questionnaire. See the July 

29, 2011, memorandum from the team 

to James Maeder entitled, ‘‘The 

Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales Below 

the Cost of Production for Louis Dreyfus 

Commodities Agroindustrial S.A.’’ 

(Louis Dreyfus Cost Investigation 

Memo). In August 2011, we received 

Louis Dreyfus’ response to section D of 

the questionnaire. 

From August 2011 through March 

2012, we issued supplemental sales and 

cost questionnaires to Cutrale, Fischer, 

and Louis Dreyfus. We also issued a 

supplemental successor-in-interest 

questionnaire to Louis Dreyfus in 

August 2011. We received responses to 

these supplemental questionnaires from 

September 2011 through March 2012. 

On October 21, 2011, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this review until 

no later than March 30, 2012.4

On March 23, 2012, the petitioners 

filed a targeted dumping allegation 

against Cutrale and requested that the 

Department consider this allegation in 

the event that it determines to apply in 

this administrative review the Final 

Modification dumping margin 

calculation methodology it published on 

February 14, 2012.5 6 Cutrale filed a 

response to the petitioners’ targeting 

dumping allegation on March 26, 2012. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain orange juice for transport and/or 

further manufacturing, produced in two 

different forms: (1) Frozen orange juice 

in a highly concentrated form, 

sometimes referred to as frozen 

concentrated orange juice for 

manufacture (FCOJM); and (2) 

pasteurized single-strength orange juice 

which has not been concentrated, 

referred to as not-from-concentrate 

(NFC). At the time of the filing of the 

petition, there was an existing 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from 

Brazil. See Antidumping Duty Order; 

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from 

Brazil, 52 FR 16426 (May 5, 1987). 

Therefore, the scope of this order with 

regard to FCOJM covers only FCOJM 

produced and/or exported by those 

companies which were excluded or 

revoked from the pre-existing 

antidumping order on FCOJ from Brazil 

as of December 27, 2004. Those 

companies are Cargill Citrus Limitada, 

Coinbra Frutesp,7 Cutrale, Fischer, and 

Montecitrus. 

Excluded from the scope of the order 

are reconstituted orange juice and 

frozen concentrated orange juice for 

retail (FCOJR). Reconstituted orange 

juice is produced through further 

manufacture of FCOJM, by adding 

water, oils and essences to the orange 

juice concentrate. FCOJR is 

concentrated orange juice, typically at 

42 Brix, in a frozen state, packed in 

retail-sized containers ready for sale to 

consumers. FCOJR, a finished consumer 

product, is produced through further 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21726 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

8Louis Dreyfus reported making only U.S. sales 

of NFC during the POR. 

manufacture of FCOJM, a bulk 

manufacturer’s product. 

The subject merchandise is currently 

classifiable under subheadings 

2009.11.00, 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 

2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

These HTSUS subheadings are provided 

for convenience and for customs 

purposes only and are not dispositive. 

Rather, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Successor-in-Interest 

In making a normal successor-ininterest determination, the Department 

examines several factors including, but 

not limited to, changes in: (1) 

Management; (2) production facilities; 

(3) supplier relationships; and (4) 

customer base. See Notice of Final 

Results of Changed Circumstances 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From 

Japan, 67 FR 58 (Jan. 2, 2002), and Brass 

Sheet and Strip from Canada; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 57 FR 20460 

(May 13, 1992). Although no one of 

these factors is dispositive, the 

Department will generally consider the 

new company to be the successor to the 

previous company if its resulting 

operation is not materially dissimilar to 

that of its predecessor. See Industrial 

Phosphoric Acid from Israel; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (Feb. 

14, 1994); and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Affirmative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Orange Juice 

from Brazil, 71 FR 2183 (Jan. 13, 2006). 

As noted above, in its request for a 

review, Louis Dreyfus claimed that it is 

the successor-in-interest to Coinbra 

Frutesp. As a result, on May 2, 2011, we 

requested that Louis Dreyfus address the 

four factors noted above (i.e., 

management, production facilities for 

the subject merchandise, supplier 

relationships, and customer base) in 

order to determine whether Louis 

Dreyfus is indeed the successor-ininterest to Coinbra Frutesp. 

On May 24, 2011, Louis Dreyfus 

submitted its response to the 

Department’s request. In this 

submission, Louis Dreyfus provided 

evidence that Coinbra Frutesp 

Agroinstrial Ltda. (Coinbra Frutesp Ag.), 

the wholly owned subsidiary of Coinbra 

Frutesp and producer of subject 

merchandise, underwent a series of 

corporate restructurings, including 

changes to the company’s name. 

According to Louis Dreyfus, these name 

changes had no effect on the company’s 

operations. Louis Dreyfus explained that 

there were no significant changes to 

Coinbra Frutesp Ag’s management, 

production facilities for the subject 

merchandise, supplier relationships, or 

customer base as a result of the change 

in corporate structure. 

On August 22, 2011, we asked further 

questions and requested additional 

documentation from Louis Dreyfus to 

support its statements that the name 

changes did not affect its management, 

production facilities, supplier 

relationships, and customer base. Louis 

Dreyfus provided this information on 

September 13, 2011. 

Based on our analysis of Louis 

Dreyfus’ May 24, 2011, and September 

13, 2011, submissions, we preliminarily 

find that Coinbra Frutesp Ag’s 

organizational structure, management, 

production facilities, supplier 

relationships, and customers have 

remained largely unchanged from the 

time of the OJ order. Further, we 

preliminarily find that Louis Dreyfus 

operates as the same business entity as 

Coinbra Frutesp Ag with respect to the 

production and sale of OJ. Thus, we 

preliminarily find that Louis Dreyfus is 

the successor-in-interest to Coinbra 

Frutesp and, as a consequence, the 

Department finds Louis Dreyfus’ U.S. 

sales of FCOJ would be subject 

merchandise in this proceeding.8 For 

further discussion, see the March 30, 

2012, memorandum to James Maeder, 

Office Director, from Elizabeth 

Eastwood, Senior Analyst, entitled, 

‘‘Successor-In-Interest Determination for 

Coinbra Frutesp S.A./Coinbra Frutesp 

Agroindustrial Ltda. and Louis Dreyfus 

Commodities Agroindustrial S.A. in the 

2010–2011 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil.’’ 

Preliminary Determination of No 

Shipments 

As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, Montecitrus indicated that it had 

no shipments of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. The 

Department subsequently confirmed 

with CBP the no-shipment claim made 

by Montecitrus. Because the evidence 

on the record indicates that Montecitrus 

did not export subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR, we 

preliminarily determine that 

Montecitrus did not have any 

reviewable transactions during the POR. 

Since the implementation of the 1997 

regulations, our practice concerning noshipment respondents had been to 

rescind the administrative review if the 

respondent certifies that it had no 

shipments and we have confirmed 

through our examination of CBP data 

that there were no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 

1997). As a result, in such 

circumstances, we normally instruct 

CBP to liquidate any entries from the 

no-shipment company at the deposit 

rate in effect on the date of entry. 

In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ clarification, we explained 

that, where respondents in an 

administrative review demonstrate that 

they had no knowledge of sales through 

resellers to the United States, we would 

instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 

the all-others rate applicable to the 

proceeding. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). 

Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation 

instructions do not alleviate the 

concerns which the May 2003 

clarification was intended to address, 

we find it appropriate in this case to 

instruct CBP to liquidate any existing 

entries of merchandise produced by 

Montecitrus, and exported by other 

parties, at the all-others rate. See, e.g., 

Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010), 

unchanged in Magnesium Metal From 

the Russian Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 56989 (Sept. 17, 2010). In 

addition, the Department finds that it is 

more consistent with the May 2003 

clarification not to rescind the review in 

part in these circumstances but, rather, 

to complete the review with respect to 

Montecitrus and issue appropriate 

instructions to CBP based on the final 

results of the review. See the 

‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this 

notice below. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of OJ by 

Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus to 

the United States were made at less than 

NV, we compared constructed export 

price (CEP) to the NV, as described in 

the ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(c)(2) and 

(e)(1), we compared the CEPs of 

individual U.S. transactions to the 

weighted-average NV of the foreign like 

product where there were sales made in 

the ordinary course of trade, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section below. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21727 

9See, e.g, Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 46584 (Aug. 11, 2008) 

(2005–2007 OJ from Brazil), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

40167 (Aug. 11, 2009) (2007–2008 OJ from Brazil), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3; Certain Orange Juice 

from Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To 

Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 

50999 (Aug. 18, 2010) (2008–2009 OJ from Brazil), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2; and Certain Orange 

Juice From Brazil: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Notice of Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty 

Order in Part, 76 FR 19315, 19318 (Apr. 7, 2011) 

(2009–2010 OJ from Brazil Preliminary Results), 

unchanged in Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Determination Not To Revoke Antidumping 

Duty Order in Part, and Final No Shipment 

Determination, 76 FR 50176 (Aug. 12, 2011) (2009– 

2010 OJ from Brazil). 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis 

Dreyfus, and covered by the description 

in the ‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, 

above, to be foreign like products for 

purposes of determining appropriate 

product comparisons to U.S. sales. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we 

compared U.S. sales of OJ to sales of OJ 

in the home market within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

to the month of the first U.S. sale until 

two months after the last U.S. sale. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the home market made 

in the ordinary course of trade to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 

foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making 

product comparisons, we matched 

foreign like products based on the 

physical characteristics reported by the 

respondents in the following order of 

importance: product type and organic 

designation. Where there were no sales 

of identical or similar merchandise, we 

made product comparisons using CV, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Calculation of Normal 

Value Based on Constructed Value’’ 

section below. See section 773(a)(4) of 

the Act. 

Constructed Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP for those 

sales where the merchandise was 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, or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter. In this case, we 

are treating all of Cutrale’s and Fischer’s 

U.S. sales as CEP sales because they 

were made in the United States by their 

U.S. affiliates on behalf of the 

respondents, within the meaning of 

section 772(b) of the Act. 

Regarding Louis Dreyfus, this 

respondent reported its U.S. sales as 

export price (EP) transactions because it 

stated that Louis Dreyfus in Brazil, not 

its U.S. affiliate, negotiated the sales 

with the U.S. customer. However, 

because the document relied upon by 

Louis Dreyfus to support its claim does 

not establish the material terms of sale 

and the U.S. affiliate, Louis Dreyfus 

Citrus Inc. (LDCI), is identified as the 

seller on the commercial invoice to the 

U.S. customer, we are treating all of 

Louis Dreyfus’s U.S. sales as CEP 

transactions in accordance with our 

practice. 

A. Cutrale 

We based CEP on the packed 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. For 

sales made pursuant to futures 

contracts, we adjusted the reported 

gross unit price (i.e., the notice price) to 

include gains and losses incurred on the 

futures contract which resulted in the 

shipment of subject merchandise. 

Additionally, for certain sales made 

pursuant to futures contracts which 

were noticed prior to the POR, but were 

shipped and invoiced during the POR, 

we adjusted the reported date of sale for 

these transactions to base it on the 

invoice date. Where appropriate, we 

also made adjustments for rebates. 

In addition, we made deductions for 

movement expenses, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight; foreign warehousing 

expenses; foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses; ocean freight; U.S. 

brokerage and handling (offset by 

customer-specific reimbursements); U.S. 

customs duties, harbor maintenance fees 

and merchandise processing fees (offset 

by U.S. duty drawback and customs 

duty reimbursements); U.S. inland 

freight expenses; and U.S. warehousing 

expenses. We capped reimbursements 

for brokerage and handling expenses by 

the amount of brokerage and handling 

expenses incurred on the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with our 

practice.9 We also capped U.S. customs 

duty reimbursements, as well as U.S. 

duty drawback, by the amount of U.S. 

customs duties incurred on the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with our 

practice. Id. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (i.e., 

commissions, imputed credit expenses, 

and repacking expenses (offset by pallet 

and drum revenue)), and indirect selling 

expenses (including inventory carrying 

costs and other indirect selling 

expenses). We capped U.S. pallet 

revenue and drum revenue by the 

amount of repacking expenses, in 

accordance with our practice. Id. In 

addition, we recalculated inventory 

carrying costs using the total 

manufacturing costs, adjusted as noted 

in the ‘‘Calculation of Cost of 

Production’’ section of this notice, 

below. 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by Cutrale and its U.S. affiliate on their 

sales of the subject merchandise in the 

United States and the profit associated 

with those sales. 

For further discussion of the changes 

made to Cutrale’s reported U.S. sales 

data, see the March 30, 2012, 

memorandum from Blaine Wiltse, 

Senior Analyst, to the File, entitled 

‘‘Calculation Adjustments for 

Sucocitrico Cutrale Ltda. for the 

Preliminary Results’’ (Cutrale 

Calculation Memo). 

B. Fischer 

We based CEP on the packed 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. In 

addition, we made deductions for 

movement expenses, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

inland freight expenses; foreign 

warehousing expenses; foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses; ocean 

freight expenses (offset by bunker fuel 

adjustments); marine insurance 

expenses; U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses; U.S. customs duties, harbor 

maintenance fees and merchandise 

processing fees (offset by U.S. duty 

drawback); U.S. inland freight expenses; 

and U.S. warehousing expenses. We 

capped reimbursements for U.S. 

customs duties, as well as U.S. duty 

drawback, by the amount of U.S. 

customs duties incurred on the subject 

merchandise, in accordance with our 

practice. See 2005–2007 OJ from Brazil 

at Comment 7; 2007–2008 OJ from 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21728 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

10Because this contradictory information is 

proprietary in nature, we cannot discuss it here. 

11See, e.g., Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from Romania: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

71357 (Dec. 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1; Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Review and Notice of 

Intent to Revoke in Part, 72 FR 25253, 25256 (May 

4, 2007), unchanged in Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review and Determination To Revoke in 

Part, 72 FR 62630 (Nov. 6, 2007); and 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 Thailand, 69 FR 76918 

(Dec. 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. 

Brazil at Comment 3; and 2008–2009 OJ 

from Brazil at Comment 2. We also 

capped bunker fuel adjustments by the 

amount of ocean freight expenses 

incurred on the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with our practice. Id. 

Further, we determined that the 

international freight expenses provided 

by Fischer’s affiliated freight provider 

were not at arm’s length. Therefore, for 

all sales shipped by Fischer’s affiliate, 

we assigned the international freight 

rate charged by Fischer’s affiliate to an 

unaffiliated party to restate them on an 

arm’s-length basis. For further 

discussion, see the March 30, 2012, 

memorandum to the file from Hector 

Rodriguez, Analyst, entitled 

‘‘Calculation Adjustments for Fischer 

S.A. Comercio, Industria, and 

Agricultura for the Preliminary Results’’ 

(Fischer Calculation Memo). 

In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (i.e., 

additional processing expenses, 

imputed credit expenses, and repacking 

expenses), and indirect selling expenses 

(including inventory carrying costs and 

other indirect selling expenses). 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by Fischer and its U.S. affiliate on their 

sales of the subject merchandise in the 

United States and the profit associated 

with those sales. 

C. Louis Dreyfus 

On February 9, 2012, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire to Louis 

Dreyfus in which we requested that 

Louis Dreyfus provide commercial 

invoices and ocean freight invoices for 

all exports of FCOJ or NFC from Brazil 

by its affiliated exporter, Louis Dreyfus 

Citrus Trading Ltda. (Louis Dreyfus 

Trading), to the United States during the 

month of March. In its response, Louis 

Dreyfus stated that it did not have any 

other sales of subject merchandise to the 

United States during March 2011 (i.e., 

outside the POR). Because (1) Louis 

Dreyfus did not respond directly to the 

Department’s question; and (2) there 

appears to exist contradictory 

information 10 on the record of this 

proceeding, we intend to issue an 

additional supplemental questionnaire 

to Louis Dreyfus to allow it to address 

this issue. We will consider this 

information for purposes of our final 

results. However, if Louis Dreyfus fails 

to respond adequately to this 

subsequent request for information, for 

purposes of the final results, we may 

consider whether the application of 

facts available is warranted, pursuant to 

section 776(a) of the Act. 

Regarding the U.S. sales that Louis 

Dreyfus did report, Louis Dreyfus used 

the date of an email order confirmation 

from its U.S. customer as the date of sale 

for its U.S. sales. The Department’s 

regulations at 19 CFR 351.401(i) provide 

that the Department may use a date 

other than the date of invoice if the 

different date better reflects the date on 

which the material terms of sale are 

established. In this instance, we find 

that the essential terms of sale are not 

set as of the date of the email between 

the parties because the quantity and 

entry date changed after that date. 

Therefore, we have used as the date of 

sale the date that Louis Dreyfus shipped 

its merchandise from Brazil because this 

date is earlier than the date LDCI issued 

the commercial invoice and better 

reflects the date on which the material 

terms of sale were established, in 

accordance with our practice 11 and 19 

CFR 351.401(i). For further discussion 

of this issue, see the March 30, 2012, 

memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood, 

Senior Analyst, to the File, entitled 

‘‘Calculation Adjustments for Louis 

Dreyfus Commodities Agroindustrial 

S.A. for the Preliminary Results’’ (Louis 

Dreyfus Sales Calculation Memo). 

We based CEP on the packed 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. Where 

appropriate, we made adjustments for 

billing adjustments. In addition, we 

made deductions for movement 

expenses, in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These included, 

where appropriate, foreign inland 

freight expenses; foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses; ocean freight 

expenses; U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses (offset by customer-specific 

reimbursements); and U.S. customs 

duties (offset by customs duty 

reimbursements). We included certain 

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses 

for which Louis Dreyfus was not 

reimbursed by its U.S. customer but 

were omitted from the U.S. sales listing. 

See Louis Dreyfus Sales Calculation 

Memo for further discussion. We 

capped reimbursements for brokerage 

and handling expenses by the amount of 

brokerage and handling expenses 

incurred on the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with our practice. See, e.g., 

2005–2007 OJ from Brazil at Comment 

7; 2007–2008 OJ from Brazil at 

Comment 3; and 2008–2009 OJ from 

Brazil at Comment 2. We also capped 

U.S. customs duty reimbursements by 

the amount of U.S. customs duties 

incurred on the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with our practice. Id. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (i.e., 

imputed credit expenses), and indirect 

selling expenses (including other 

indirect selling expenses). Because 

Louis Dreyfus did not report indirect 

selling expenses for LDCI, we calculated 

these expenses using the audited 

financial statements for LDCI’s parent 

company contained in Louis Dreyfus’ 

May 24, 2011, response. For further 

discussion of this calculation, see the 

Louis Dreyfus Sales Calculation Memo. 

We intend to issue an additional 

supplemental questionnaire to request 

that Louis Dreyfus provide a calculation 

of LDCI’s indirect selling expenses. We 

will consider this information for 

purposes of our final results. However, 

if Louis Dreyfus fails to respond 

adequately to this subsequent request 

for information, for purposes of the final 

results, we may consider whether the 

application of facts available is 

warranted, pursuant to section 776(a) of 

the Act. 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by Louis Dreyfus and its U.S. affiliate on 

their sales of the subject merchandise in 

the United States and the profit 

associated with those sales. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21729 

12Where NV is based on CV, we determine the 

NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which 

we derive selling, general and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and Selection 

of Comparison Markets 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

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

the Act. 

We determined that the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product for each respondent 

was sufficient to permit a proper 

comparison with its U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise. 

B. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as 

the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 

different LOTs if they are made at 

different marketing stages (or their 

equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id., see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) 

(Plate from South Africa). In order to 

determine whether the comparison 

market sales were at different stages in 

the marketing process than the U.S. 

sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution), including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 

on either home market or third country 

prices),12 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 

we consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Act. See Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 

F.3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 

sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more 

advanced stage of distribution than the 

CEP LOT and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from each 

respondent regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

home market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed by each respondent for each 

channel of distribution. Companyspecific LOT findings are summarized 

below. 

1. Cutrale 

Cutrale reported that it made CEP 

sales through one channel of 

distribution in the United States (i.e., 

sales via an affiliated reseller) and thus 

the selling activities it performed did 

not vary by the type of customer. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for this channel and found 

that Cutrale performed the following 

selling functions: sales forecasting, 

order input/processing, freight and 

delivery, packing, quality guarantees, 

and maintaining inventory at the port of 

exportation. 

Selling activities can be generally 

grouped into four selling function 

categories for analysis: (1) Sales and 

marketing; (2) freight and delivery; (3) 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and 4) warranty and 

technical support. See 2008–2009 OJ 

from Brazil at Comment 7; and Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 9991, 

9996 (Mar. 9, 2009), unchanged in 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

India: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 33409 

(July 13, 2009). Based on these selling 

function categories, we find that Cutrale 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

warranty and technical support for U.S. 

sales. Because all sales in the United 

States are made through a single 

distribution channel and the selling 

activities did not differ within this 

channel, we preliminarily determine 

that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, 

Cutrale reported that it made sales 

through one channel of distribution (i.e., 

direct sales to soft drink manufacturers). 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for home market sales and 

found that Cutrale performed the 

following selling functions: sales 

forecasting, direct sales personnel, order 

input/processing, advertising, freight 

and delivery, packing, quality 

guarantees, after-sales services, and 

inventory maintenance at the factory. 

Accordingly, based on the four selling 

function categories listed above, we find 

that Cutrale performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery, 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing, and warranty and 

technical support for home market sales. 

Because all home market sales are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

and the selling activities did not differ 

within this channel, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

home market for Cutrale. 

Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

and home market customers do not 

differ significantly. Specifically, we 

found that the differences were limited 

to the following activities: (1) Cutrale 

performed limited, general image 

advertising in the home market; (2) 

Cutrale entered orders into the 

company’s computer system for home 

market sales based on orders placed by 

customers, while it generated sales 

documents for sales to its U.S. affiliate 

based on a general shipping schedule; 

(3) Cutrale has direct sales personnel 

assigned to servicing its home market 

customers while employing an export 

sales office whose staff is assigned to 

service all export market customers, 

including U.S. customers; (4) Cutrale 

provided limited technical assistance 

and after-sale services to home market 

customers during the POR; and (5) 

Cutrale provides quality guarantees 

directly to its home market customers, 

while it provides similar guarantees for 

its U.S. sales through its U.S. affiliate. 

According to 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2), 

the Department will determine that 

sales are made at different levels of 

trade if they are made at different 

marketing stages (or their equivalent). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stage of 

marketing. Therefore, because we 

determine that substantial differences in 

Cutrale’s selling activities do not exist 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21730 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

13This finding is also consistent with Cutrale’s 

statement that there were no significant differences 

between the sales process that it performed during 

the current POR and that which it performed in 

both markets during the previous segment of the 

proceeding. See Cutrale’s supplemental section A 

response, submitted on September 15, 2011, at page 

1. 

14Louis Dreyfus reported that its U.S. sales were 

EP, not CEP, sales. However, as noted in the 

‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ section of this notice, 

above, we have reclassified Louis Dreyfus’ U.S. 

sales as CEP sales for purposes of the preliminary 

results. 

15 In its selling functions chart, Louis Dreyfus 

indicated that it performed freight and delivery for 

certain home market sales; however, it did not 

report these expenses for any home market sales. 

Therefore, we are not considering this selling 

function for purposes of our analysis. 

across markets, we determine that sales 

to the U.S. and home markets during the 

POR were made at the same LOT. As a 

result, neither a LOT adjustment nor a 

CEP offset is warranted for Cutrale. This 

determination is consistent with 

findings in previous reviews.13 See, e.g., 

2005–2007 OJ from Brazil at Comment 

5; 2007–2008 OJ from Brazil at 

Comment 2; 2008–2009 OJ from Brazil 

at Comment 7; and 2009–2010 OJ from 

Brazil Preliminary Results, 76 FR at 

19319, unchanged in 2009–2010 OJ from 

Brazil. 

2. Louis Dreyfus 

Louis Dreyfus made CEP sales 14

through one channel of distribution in 

the United States (i.e., sales via an 

affiliated reseller) and, thus, the selling 

activities it performed did not vary by 

the type of customer. We examined the 

selling activities performed for this 

channel and found that Louis Dreyfus 

performed the following selling 

functions: customer contact and price 

negotiation; order input/processing; 

employing direct sales personnel; 

providing guarantees; providing 

inventory maintenance; and arranging 

for freight. Selling activities can be 

generally grouped into four selling 

function categories for analysis: (1) 

Sales and marketing; (2) freight and 

delivery; (3) inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and (4) warranty and 

technical support. Accordingly, based 

on these selling function categories, we 

find that Louis Dreyfus performed sales 

and marketing, freight and delivery 

services, and inventory maintenance 

and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because 

all sales in the United States are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, 

Louis Dreyfus reported that it made 

sales through two channels of 

distribution to two types of customers 

(i.e., large soft drink manufacturers/ 

industrial juice producers and small soft 

drink manufacturers). However, we find 

that the selling activities it performed 

did not vary significantly by the channel 

of distribution or the type of customer. 

Therefore, we have considered the 

selling functions for all customers in the 

aggregate. We examined the selling 

activities performed for home market 

sales, and found that Louis Dreyfus 

performed the following selling 

functions:15 customer contact and price 

negotiation; order input/processing; 

employing direct sales personnel; 

providing guarantees; and packing. In 

addition, for certain home market sales, 

Louis Dreyfus also indicated that it 

performed sales forecasting and 

inventory maintenance. Accordingly, 

based on the selling function categories 

listed above, we find that Louis Dreyfus 

performed sales and marketing and 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing for home market sales. 

Because all home market sales are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the home market for Louis 

Dreyfus. 

Finally, we compared the CEP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

and home market customers do not 

differ significantly. Therefore, we 

determine that sales to the U.S. and 

home markets during the POR were 

made at the same LOT, and as a result, 

neither a LOT adjustment nor a CEP 

offset is warranted for Louis Dreyfus. 

3. Fischer 

Because all of Fischer’s home market 

sales failed the cost test during the POR, 

we based NV on CV. When NV is based 

on CV, the NV LOT is that of the sales 

from which we derive selling, general, 

and administrative (SG&A) expenses 

and profit. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

69 FR 47081 (Aug. 4, 2004), unchanged 

in Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (Dec. 23, 

2004). In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.412(d), the Department will make 

its LOT determination under paragraph 

(d)(2) of this section on the basis of sales 

of the foreign like product by the 

producer or exporter. We based the 

selling expenses and profit for Fischer 

on the weighted-average selling 

expenses incurred and profits earned by 

the other respondents in the proceeding 

(i.e., Cutrale and Louis Dreyfus). Thus, 

as described below, we attempted to 

determine the LOT of the sales from 

which we derived selling expenses and 

profit for CV. 

Fischer reported that it made CEP 

sales through one channel of 

distribution in the United States (i.e., 

sales via an affiliated reseller) and, thus, 

the selling activities it performed did 

not vary by the type of customer. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for this channel and found 

that Fischer performed the following 

selling functions: customer contact and 

price negotiation; order processing; 

arranging for freight and the provision 

of customs clearance/brokerage services; 

and inventory maintenance. Selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

four selling function categories for 

analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) 

freight and delivery; (3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and (4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, based on these selling 

function categories, we find that Fischer 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing for U.S. 

sales. Because all sales in the United 

States are made through a single 

distribution channel and the selling 

activities did not differ within this 

channel, we preliminarily determine 

that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. 

As noted above, based on the four 

selling function categories, we find that 

Cutrale performed sales and marketing, 

freight and delivery, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

warranty and technical support for its 

home market sales. In addition, we find 

that Louis Dreyfus performed sales and 

marketing and inventory maintenance 

and warehousing for its home market 

sales. Because Cutrale and Louis 

Dreyfus did not perform the same 

selling functions in the home market, 

we could not determine the LOT of the 

sales from which we derived selling 

expenses and profit for CV. As a result, 

we could not compare the CEP LOT to 

the home market LOT. Therefore, we 

did not make a LOT adjustment or CEP 

offset to NV for Fischer. See the 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Constructed Value’’ section of this 

notice, below. 

C. Affiliated-Party Transactions and 

Arm’s-Length Test 

During the POR, Cutrale and Louis 

Dreyfus made sales in the home market 

to affiliated parties, as defined in 

section 771(33) of the Act. 

Consequently, we tested these sales to 

ensure that they were made at arm’slength prices, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.403(c). To test whether the 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21731 

sales to the affiliates were made at 

arm’s-length prices, we compared the 

unit prices of sales to the affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers net of all 

movement charges, direct selling 

expenses, and packing expenses. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, where the price to that 

affiliated party was, on average, within 

a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price 

of the same or comparable merchandise 

sold to the unaffiliated parties at the 

same LOT, we determined that the sales 

made to the affiliated party were at 

arm’s-length. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (Nov. 15, 2002) (establishing that 

the overall ratio calculated for an 

affiliate must be between 98 and 102 

percent in order for sales to be 

considered in the ordinary course of 

trade and used in the NV calculation). 

Sales to affiliated customers in the home 

market that were not made at arm’slength prices were excluded from our 

analysis because we considered these 

sales to be outside the ordinary course 

of trade. See section 771(15) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.102(b). 

D. Cost of Production Analysis 

We found that Cutrale and Fischer 

made sales below the COP in the 2008– 

2009 administrative review, the most 

recently completed segment of this 

proceeding as of the date of initiation of 

this review, and such sales were 

disregarded. See 2008–2009 OJ from 

Brazil. Thus, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that Cutrale and Fischer made home 

market sales at prices below the cost of 

producing the merchandise in the 

current POR. 

Moreover, on July 18, 2011, the 

petitioners alleged that Louis Dreyfus 

made sales in the home market, during 

the POR that were below the COP. 

Based on our analysis of the allegation 

made by the petitioner, we found that 

Louis Dreyfus’ home market sales which 

fell below the COP were representative 

of the broader range of sales which may 

be used as a basis for NV. Therefore, we 

determined, on this basis as well, that 

there were reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that Louis Dreyfus’ 

sales of OJ in the home market were 

made at prices below its COP. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) 

of the Act, we initiated a sales-belowcost investigation to determine whether 

Louis Dreyfus’ sales were made at prices 

below its COP. See Louis Dreyfus Cost 

Investigation Memo. 

We examined the cost data for 

Cutrale, Fischer, and Louis Dreyfus and 

determined that our quarterly cost 

methodology is not warranted and, 

therefore, we have applied our standard 

methodology of using annual costs 

based on the reported data, adjusted as 

described below. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the 

respondents’ COPs based on the sum of 

their costs of materials and conversion 

for the foreign like product, plus 

amounts for general and administrative 

(G&A) expenses and interest expenses 

(see ‘‘Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices’’ section, below, for treatment of 

home market selling expenses). 

a. Cutrale 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by Cutrale in its most 

recently submitted cost database for the 

COP calculation, except in the following 

instances: 

i. We used Cutrale’s home market 

actual brix level data to adjust Cutrale’s 

home market costs to ensure that these 

are stated on a pounds-solid basis using 

actual brix; and 

ii. We revised Cutrale’s calculation of 

its G&A expense rate to exclude from 

the numerator of the calculation the 

change in fair value of biological assets 

(i.e., orange trees). We intend to issue an 

additional supplemental questionnaire 

to Cutrale to allow it to provide further 

information on the valuation of these 

assets. 

For further discussion of this 

adjustment, see the Cutrale Calculation 

Memo. 

b. Fischer 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by Fischer in its first 

cost database, rather than its cost 

database submitted in December 2011, 

because Fischer made certain 

unexplained adjustments to its reported 

costs. We intend to issue an additional 

supplemental questionnaire to Fischer 

to allow it to provide further 

information regarding these 

adjustments. We adjusted Fischer’s 

reported cost data as follows: 

i. We adjusted Fischer’s financial expense 

calculation to disallow long term interest 

income and to include the total amount of 

Fischer’s realized hedge results as recorded 

in Fischer’s income statement. 

ii. We revised Fischer’s G&A expense ratio 

calculation to include ‘‘other’’ operating 

expenses related to provisions and disposal 

of fixed assets. 

iii. In accordance with the transactions 

disregarded rule (i.e., section 773(f)(2) of the 

Act) we adjusted Fischer’s cost of 

manufacturing (COM) to reflect the market 

value for the sale of certain by-products to its 

affiliated trade company. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the Fischer Calculation 

Memo. 

c. Louis Dreyfus 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by Louis Dreyfus in its 

most recently submitted cost database 

for the COP calculation, except in the 

following instances: 

i. We revised the denominator of Louis 

Dreyfus’ reported G&A expense ratio to 

reflect the company-wide fiscal year 2010 

cost of sales reflected on Louis Dreyfus’ 

audited income statement. We adjusted the 

cost of sales for by-product revenue, packing 

expenses, and the difference between Louis 

Dreyfus’ growing season costs reported to the 

Department and the growing season costs 

recorded in the company’s normal books and 

records. To calculate these adjustments, we 

determined the relative percentage of each 

type of expense or adjustment to Louis 

Dreyfus’ fiscal year 2010 cost of sales. We 

then applied the percentages to the parent 

company’s fiscal year 2010 cost of sales to 

determine the adjustment to the 

denominator. 

ii. We revised the numerator of Louis 

Dreyfus’ reported financial expense ratio to 

include only that portion of the claimed 

short-term interest income offset that the 

record indicates was generated by short-term 

interest bearing assets related to working 

capital. We also revised the denominator of 

the financial expense ratio (i.e., Louis 

Dreyfus’ parent company’s cost of sales) to 

reflect the same adjustments made to G&A 

(i.e., by-product revenue, packing expenses, 

and growing season cost differences), as 

detailed above. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the March 30, 2012, 

memorandum from LaVonne Clark to 

Neal M. Halper entitled, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Louis Dreyfus 

Citrus Inc. and Louis Dreyfus 

Commodities Agroindustrial S.A.’’ 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

prices of the foreign like product, as 

required under section 773(b) of the Act, 

in order to determine whether the sales 

prices were below the COP. For 

purposes of this comparison, we used 

COP exclusive of selling and packing 

expenses. The prices (inclusive of 

billing adjustments, where appropriate) 

were exclusive of any applicable 

movement charges, direct and indirect 

selling expenses and packing expenses. 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21732 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act: (1) Whether, within an extended 

period of time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities; and (2) whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time in 

the normal course of trade. Where less 

than 20 percent of the respondent’s 

home market sales of a given product 

are at prices less than the COP, we do 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that product, because we determine that 

in such instances the below-cost sales 

were not made within an extended 

period of time and in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more 

of a respondent’s sales of a given 

product are at prices less than the COP, 

we disregard the below-cost sales when: 

(1) They were made within an extended 

period of time in ‘‘substantial 

quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and (2) 

based on our comparison of prices to the 

weighted-average COPs for the POR, 

they were at prices which would not 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act. 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of Cutrale’s and 

Louis Dreyfus’, and all of Fischer’s, 

home market sales were at prices less 

than the COP and, in addition, such 

sales did not provide for the recovery of 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

We therefore excluded these sales from 

our analysis. We used the remaining 

sales as the basis for determining NV for 

Cutrale and Louis Dreyfus in accordance 

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

For those U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise for which there were no 

home market sales in the ordinary 

course of trade, we compared CEPs to 

CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) 

of the Act. See the ‘‘Calculation of 

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value’’ section below. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

1. Cutrale 

For Cutrale, we calculated NV based 

on ex-factory prices to unaffiliated 

customers. We made adjustments, 

where appropriate, to the starting price 

for billing adjustments and interest 

revenue, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c). We have treated Cutrale’s 

home market interest revenue as a price 

adjustment, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c) and 351.102(b). We also 

made adjustments, where appropriate, 

to the starting price for Brazilian taxes, 

in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. 

In addition we made deductions 

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

Act for home market credit expenses. 

We recalculated Cutrale’s home market 

credit expenses to base the calculation 

on the gross unit price, inclusive of 

home market interest revenue, but net of 

taxes and billing adjustments. Where 

applicable, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e), we offset any commission 

paid on a U.S. sale by reducing the NV 

by the amount of home market indirect 

selling expenses and inventory carrying 

costs, up to the amount of the U.S. 

commission. 

We recalculated home market 

inventory carrying costs using the 

manufacturing costs reported in 

Cutrale’s most recent cost response, 

adjusted as noted in the ‘‘Calculation of 

Cost of Production’’ section of this 

notice, above. For further discussion of 

these adjustments, see the Cutrale 

Calculation Memo. 

We deducted home market packing 

costs and added U.S. packing costs, 

where appropriate, in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

Finally, we made adjustments for 

differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

2. Louis Dreyfus 

We calculated NV based on delivered 

prices to unaffiliated customers. We 

made adjustments, where appropriate, 

to the starting price for billing 

adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c). We also made adjustments, 

where appropriate, to the starting price 

for Brazilian taxes, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. 

In addition, we made deductions 

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

Act for home market credit expenses. 

We deducted home market packing 

costs and added U.S. packing costs, in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. 

Finally, we made adjustments for 

differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

F. 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 CV. Accordingly, for all of 

Fischer’s sales and for certain sales 

made by Louis Dreyfus, we based NV on 

CV because there were no home market 

sales in the ordinary course of trade that 

could be properly compared to those 

U.S. sales. 

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 expense (including financing 

expenses), profit, and U.S. packing 

costs. We calculated respondents’ 

materials, G&A, and financing costs as 

described in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section, above. 

For comparisons to CEP, we deducted 

from CV the respondents’ weightedaverage home market direct selling 

expenses. 

Because Fischer did not have home 

market sales in the ordinary course of 

trade, the Department cannot determine 

profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the 

Act, which requires sales by the 

respondent in question in the ordinary 

course of trade in a comparison market. 

Likewise, because Fischer does not have 

sales of any product in the same general 

category of products as the subject 

merchandise, we are unable to apply 

alternative (i) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of 

the Act. Alternative (ii) of section 

773(e)(2)(B) of the Act allows for the 

Department to use the weighted average 

of the actual amounts incurred and 

realized by exporters or producers that 

are subject to the investigation or review 

(other than the exporter or producer 

described in clause (i)) for SG&A 

expenses, and for profits, in connection 

with the production and sale of a 

foreign like product, in the ordinary 

course of trade, for consumption in the 

foreign country. Further, because there 

are two other respondents in this 

administrative review, the Department 

is applying alternative (ii) and has based 

Fischer’s CV selling expenses and profit 

rate on the weighted average of the data 

of Cutrale and Louis Dreyfus. For 

further discussion, see the Fischer 

Calculation Memo. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

March 1, 2010, through February 28, 

2011, as follows: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21733 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. ................ 2.81 

Fischer S.A. Comercio, Industria, 

and Agricultura ............................ 8.73 

Louis Dreyfus Commodities 

Agroindustrial S.A. ...................... 22.03 

Montecitrus Trading S.A. ................ (*) 

* No shipments or sales subject to this 

review. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit cases 

briefs not later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, may be filed not later 

than five days after the time limit for 

filing the case briefs. Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are requested to submit with 

each argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, filed 

electronically using Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 

An electronically filed document must 

be received successfully in its entirety 

by the Department’s electronic records 

system, IA ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern 

Standard Time within 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s 

name, address and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in the respective case briefs 

and rebuttal briefs. The Department will 

issue the final results of this 

administrative review, including the 

results of its analysis of the issues raised 

in the case briefs and rebuttals, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

We will calculate importer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the sales. We will instruct CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(1). The final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy 

Notice. This clarification will apply to 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, or the original less than fair 

value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters of NFC, and for FCOJM 

produced and/or exported by Cargill 

Citrus Limitada will continue to be 

16.51 percent, the all-others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

OJ Order, 71 FR at 12184. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: March 30, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8381 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–583–833] 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From 

Taiwan: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 11, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael A. Romani, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0198. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES