Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices 26145

1 During the period of review, the minimum

export price was a floor price set by the Carteira do

Comercio Exterior de Banco do Brasil (CACEX), the

export department of the Bank of Brazil. Minimum

export prices were based on the price of FCOJ on

the New York Cotton Exchange. Because the price

movements of FCOJ on the futures market are

irregular, the minimum export price may have

remained the same or may have changed several

times within a month.

Dated: May 6, 1998.

Joseph A. Spetrini,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement

Group III.

[FR Doc. 98–12594 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–605]

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice

From Brazil; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On January 14, 1998, the

Department of Commerce published in

the Federal Register the preliminary

results of the administrative review of

the antidumping duty order on frozen

concentrated orange juice from Brazil.

This review covers two producers/

exporters, Branco Peres Citrus, S.A. and

CTM Citrus, S.A. (formerly Citropectina). The Department terminated

the review with respect to another firm,

Citrovita S.A. See Frozen Concentrated

Orange Juice from Brazil: Preliminary

Results of Administrative Review;

Termination in Part; and Intent Not to

Revoke in Part, 63 FR 2202 (January 14,

1998). This review covers the period

May 1, 1993, through April 30, 1994.

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on our

preliminary results. We have based our

analysis on the comments received and

have changed the results from those

presented in the preliminary results of

review.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Fabian Rivelis or Irina Itkin, Office 5,

AD/CVD Enforcement, Group II, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–3853 or (202) 482–

0656, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On January 14, 1998, the Department

of Commerce (the Department)

published in the Federal Register its

preliminary results of the 1993–1994

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on frozen

concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) from

Brazil (62 FR 2202). The Department has

now completed this administrative

review, in accordance with section

751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act).

Applicable Statute and Regulations

The Department is conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act. 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

The merchandise covered by this

review is frozen concentrated orange

juice from Brazil. The merchandise is

currently classifiable under subheading

2009.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

The HTSUS subheading is provided for

convenience and for customs purposes.

The written description remains

dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

We gave interested parties an

opportunity to comment on the

preliminary results. We received

comments only from Branco Peres

Citrus S.A. (Branco Peres).

Comment 1: Calculation of

Comparison Market Commissions.

For the preliminary results, the

Department based foreign market value

(FMV) on the applicable minimum

export price 1 (MEP) as a third-country

offer for sale where no

contemporaneous third-country sale

existed. In cases where FMV was based

on the MEP, we used the weighted

average of the charges and adjustments

reported for actual third-country sales.

According to Branco Peres, the

Department erred in calculating a single

average commission amount and

applying it to four separate MEPs when

calculating FMV. Branco Peres asserts

that this methodology understated the

amount of the commission that it would

have paid if the merchandise had

actually been sold at the MEP.

Specifically, Branco Peres maintains

that the commission amount would

have been based on a fixed commission

percentage and would have been higher

than the average commission used by

the Department.

Branco Peres asserts that the

calculation of the single average

commission amount is inconsistent with

the calculation of U.S. commissions,

which was based on the fixed

commission percentage for each U.S.

sale. Branco Peres maintains that the

amount of both the third country and

U.S. commissions should be exactly the

same because, in every comparison, the

U.S. price was exactly the same as the

MEP. According to Branco Peres, the

Department’s use of inconsistent

methodologies not only results in an

unfair comparison, but also generates a

dumping margin greater than de

minimis. Branco Peres asserts that the

Department should correct this error by

deducting from FMV a commission

amount based on the fixed commission

percentage.

Branco Peres also argues that the

Department’s use of a single average

commission amount for the period of

review (POR) violated long-standing

Department policy. Branco Peres states

that the Department’s practice in the

1993–1994 period for cases from Brazil,

as illustrated in Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel

Flat Products from Brazil, 58 FR 37091,

37093 (July 9, 1993), was to determine

expenses on a monthly basis because

Brazil’s economy experienced hyperinflation during that period. Therefore,

Branco Peres asserts that the

Department must calculate expenses

based on the actual monthly expenses in

effect for each MEP period.

Nonetheless, Branco Peres argues that

if the Department continues to use a

single average commission, it should

revise its calculation to include only

those commissions related to sales

which were contemporaneous with its

U.S. sales, under the Department’s usual

price-to-price methodology for

administrative reviews. Branco Peres

notes that the Department calculated a

single average commission based on the

average commission expenses related to

all third-country sales to the

Netherlands, even though only four of

those sales were contemporaneous with

the U.S. sales in question.

DOC Position: We agree. Our review

of the record of this case shows that a

fixed commission rate was in effect for

all of Branco Peres’ export sales during

the POR and that the payment of a

commission based on this rate is Branco

Peres’ normal business practice. Our

calculation of the average POR

commissions understated the

commissions Branco Peres would have

paid if it had made the sale at the MEP.

Accordingly, we have calculated

commissions by applying the
26146 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices

commission rate to the MEP. This

calculation is consistent with our

calculations for Branco Peres in the

1992–1993 review, where the MEP was

also used as an offer for sale to calculate

FMV. See Notice of Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review: Frozen Concentrated Orange

Juice from Brazil, 62 FR 5798 (February

7, 1997).

Comment 2: Revocation of the

Antidumping Duty Order With Respect

to Branco Peres.

Branco Peres argues that, if the

Department recalculates its comparison

market commissions, the Department

should revoke the antidumping duty

order against it because its margin in

this review (1993–1994) is de minimis.

Branco Peres notes that its margin in the

1995–1996 review was zero, and no

review was conducted in the

intervening year. That review was

terminated because both Branco Peres

and CTM withdrew their requests for

review and there were no other requests

for review (see Frozen Concentrated

Orange Juice from Brazil: Termination

of Antidumping Administrative Review,

60 FR 53163 (October 12, 1995)). Branco

Peres cites section 351.222(d) of the

Department’s new regulations,

published on May 19, 1997, which

permits revocation after the Department

has conducted reviews in the first and

third years of a three-year period and

has found zero or de minimis dumping

margins. Branco Peres states that the

Department’s rationale not to revoke it

from the order after the 1995–1996

review period no longer applies because

the new regulations are now in effect.

Branco Peres asserts that it is

similarly entitled to revocation under

section 353.25(a) of the Department’s

old regulations, because that regulation

required only that the company under

review has ‘‘sold the merchandise at not

less than foreign market value for a

period of at least three consecutive

years.’’ Branco Peres claims that it meets

this requirement because in the

intervening year its entries were

liquidated at a zero duty deposit rate.

Branco Peres asserts that revocation

now does not contradict the

Department’s final results in the 1995–

1996 review, where the Department

stated that it had denied revocation for

a respondent which had withdrawn

from the second period of review.

Branco Peres notes that in that case the

Department could not conclude that the

respondent in question had exported the

merchandise at not less than fair value

during the entire three year period

because, in the intervening year, it had

entered merchandise at deposit rates

that were greater than de minimis. See

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from

Brazil; Final Results and Termination in

Part of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review; Revocation in

Part of the Antidumping Duty Order, 56

FR 52510, 52512 (October 21, 1991).

DOC Position: We disagree. The new

regulations cited by Branco Peres did

not take effect until June 19, 1997, well

after the initiation of the 1995–1996

review. In addition, although it does not

affect the result here, we note that the

instant review was initiated prior to the

effective date of the new regulations. As

stated in the final results of the 1995–

1996 review, the Department can

conclude that a producer has sold

merchandise at not less than fair value

for three consecutive years, within the

meaning of 19 CFR 353.25(a), only

pursuant to administrative reviews

actually conducted for each of the three

years. See Frozen Concentrated Orange

Juice from Brazil: Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review, 62 FR 29328 (May 30, 1997)

(1995–1996 FCOJ Review). Because no

administrative review was conducted

for the intervening 1994–1995 period,

we cannot make this conclusion.

Accordingly, we have determined not to

revoke the antidumping duty order with

respect to Branco Peres.

Final Results of Review

As a result of the comments received

we have revised our preliminary results

and determine that the following

margins exist for the period May 1,

1993, through April 30, 1994:

Manufacturer/exporter Review period Percent

margin

Branco Peres ............................................................................................................................................................. 5/1/93–4/30/94 0.18

CTM Citrus S.A. ......................................................................................................................................................... 5/1/93–4/30/94 0.00

The Department has not revoked the

antidumping duty order with respect to

either Branco Peres or CTM Citrus S.A.

(CTM) because neither Branco Peres nor

CTM has demonstrated three

consecutive years of sales at not less

than FMV.

The Department shall determine, and

the Customs Service shall assess,

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries. Individual differences between

United States Price and FMV may vary

from the percentages stated above. We

have calculated a company-specific

duty assessment rate based on the ratio

of the total amount of antidumping

duties calculated for the examined sales

made during the POR to the total value

of subject merchandise entered during

the POR. The rate will be assessed

uniformly on all entries of that

particular company made during the

POR. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

the Customs Service.

Furthermore, the following deposit

requirements 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 Act: (1) Because

a subsequent administrative review of

Branco Peres has been completed, the

cash deposit rate for this company will

continue to be the rate calculated in that

administrative review (see 1995–1996

FCOJ Review); (2) the cash deposit rate

for CTM will be the calculated margin

in the final results of this administrative

review, as stated above; (3) for

previously reviewed or investigated

companies not listed above, the cash

deposit rate will continue to be the

company-specific rate published for the

most recent period; (4) if the exporter is

not a firm covered in this review, a prior

review, or the original less-than-fairvalue (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 (5) for all other

producers and/or exporters of this

merchandise, the cash deposit rate will

be 1.96 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate

from the LTFV investigation. These cash

deposit requirements, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 91 /Tuesday, May 12, 1998 / Notices 26147

reimbursement of antidumping duties

occurred and 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 section 353.34(d) of the

Department’s regulations. Timely

notification of return/destruction of

APO materials or conversion to judicial

protective order is hereby requested.

Failure to comply with the regulations

and the terms of an APO is a

sanctionable violation.

This administrative review and notice

are in accordance with section

751(a)(1)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.22.

Dated: May 5, 1998.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 98–12446 Filed 5–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–122–814]

Pure Magnesium From Canada;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Administrative Review and Notice of

Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of preliminary results of

antidumping duty administrative review

and notice of intent not to revoke order

in part of pure magnesium from Canada.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

is conducting an administrative review

of the antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from Canada. The period of

review is August 1, 1996 through July

31, 1997. This review covers imports of

pure magnesium from one producer/

exporter.

We have preliminarily found that

sales of subject merchandise have not

been made below normal value. Further,

we intend not to revoke the order with

respect to pure magnesium from Canada

produced by Norsk Hydro Canada Inc.

If these preliminary results are adopted

in our final results, we will instruct the

Customs Service not to assess

antidumping duties.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

We will issue the final results not later

than 120 days from the date of

publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 12, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zak

Smith, Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20230; telephone (202)

482–1279.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (‘‘the

Act’’) by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the

Department’s’’) regulations refer to the

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351

(62 FR 27399, May 19, 1997).

Background

The Department published an

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from Canada on August 31,

1992 (57 FR 39390). On August 4, 1997,

the Department published a notice of

‘‘Opportunity to Request an

Administrative Review’’ of the

antidumping duty order on pure

magnesium from Canada (62 FR 41925).

On August 29, 1997, a producer/

exporter, Norsk Hydro Canada Inc.

(‘‘NHCI’’) requested an administrative

review of its exports of the subject

merchandise to the United States for the

period of review August 1, 1996,

through July 31, 1997. In accordance

with 19 CFR 351.221, we initiated the

review on September 25, 1997. The

Department is now conducting this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The product covered by this review is

pure magnesium. Pure unwrought

magnesium contains at least 99.8

percent magnesium by weight and is

sold in various slab and ingot forms and

sizes. Granular and secondary

magnesium are excluded from the scope

currently classifiable under subheading

8104.11.0000 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule (‘‘HTS’’). The HTS item

number is provided for convenience and

for customs purposes. The written

description remains dispositive.

Verification

As provided in section 751(d) of the

Act, we verified information provided

by the respondent, NHCI, by using our

standard verification procedures,

including on-site examination of

relevant sales and financial records.

Export Price

For sales to the United States, we

used export price (‘‘EP’’) as defined in

section 772(a) of the Act because the

merchandise was sold directly to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States prior to importation. The use of

constructed export prices was not

warranted based on the facts of the

record. EP was based on the packed

delivered, duties unpaid price to

unaffiliated purchasers in the United

States. We made a deduction for

movement expenses in accordance with

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

included the foreign and U.S. inland

freight expense.

Normal Value

We compared the aggregate quantity

of home market and U.S. sales and

determined that the quantity of the

company’s sales in its home market was

more than five percent of the quantity

of its sales to the U.S. market.

Consequently, pursuant to section

773(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we based normal

value (‘‘NV’’) on home market sales.

We made adjustments for differences

in packing in accordance with sections

773(a)(6)(A), B(i) of the Act. We also

made adjustments for movement

expenses, consistent with section

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, for inland

freight. In addition, we made

adjustments for differences in

circumstances of sale (‘‘COS’’) in

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

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. We

made COS adjustments by deducting

direct selling expenses incurred on

home market sales (credit expenses) and

adding U.S. direct selling expenses

(credit expenses).

Revocation

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2),

NHCI requested revocation of the

antidumping duty order in part. In

accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(e), the

request was accompanied by

certifications that NHCI had not sold the

subject merchandise at less than normal

value during the current period of

review and would not do so in the

future. NHCI further certified that it sold

the subject merchandise to the United

States in commercial quantities for a

period of at least three consecutive

years. NHCI also agreed to immediate

reinstatement of the antidumping duty

order, as long as any exporter or

producer is subject to the order, if the

Department concludes that NHCI,

subsequent to the revocation, sold the