Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15435 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–201–802] 

Gray Portland Cement and Clinker 

From Mexico: Final Results of 

Changed-Circumstances Review, 

Revocation of Antidumping Duty 

Order, and Termination of Five-Year 

(Sunset) Review of Antidumping Duty 

Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On February 17, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published a notice of 

initiation of changed-circumstances 

review, preliminary results of review, 

intent to revoke the antidumping duty 

order, and intent to terminate the fiveyear (sunset) review of the antidumping 

duty order on gray portland cement and 

clinker from Mexico. 

We received comments from various 

interested parties supporting our 

preliminary results of review, 

revocation of the order, and termination 

of the sunset review. After consideration 

of those comments we are revoking the 

order and terminating the sunset review 

of the order. 

DATES: Effective Date: April 1, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230, 

telephone: (202) 482–3477 and (202) 

482–1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 6, 2006, the Office of the 

United States Trade Representative, 

Secretaria de Economia of the United 

Mexican States, and the Department 

entered into an Agreement on Trade in 

Cement. See Gray Portland Cement and 

Clinker From Mexico: Agreement 

Between the Office of the United States 

Trade Representative, The United States 

Department of Commerce and 

Secretaria de Economia of Mexico on 

Trade in Cement, 71 FR 13082 (March 

14, 2006) (Agreement). Pursuant to the 

Agreement, the domestic industry, 

represented by the Southern Tier 

Cement Committee and its members, 

Capitol Aggregates, Ltd., and Holcim 

(U.S.) Inc., submitted letters stating that 

they have ‘‘no interest’’ in maintaining 

the order after the expiration of the 

Agreement. 

On February 17, 2009, the Department 

of Commerce published the notice of 

initiation of changed-circumstances 

review, preliminary results of review, 

intent to revoke the antidumping duty 

order, and intent to terminate the fiveyear (sunset) review of antidumping 

duty order. See Gray Portland Cement 

and Clinker From Mexico: Initiation of 

Changed-Circumstances Review, 

Preliminary Results of Review, Intent to 

Revoke Antidumping Duty Order, and 

Intent to Terminate Five-year (Sunset) 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 

FR 7393 (February 17, 2009) (Intent to 

Revoke). 

We received comments from various 

interested parties supporting our 

preliminary results of review, 

revocation of the order, and termination 

of the sunset review. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that all of the terms of 

the Agreement (see Intent to Revoke) 

have been satisfied. 

Revocation of Order 

Because we determine that the terms 

of the Agreement and, therefore, the 

terms of the ‘‘no interest’’ letters from 

producers accounting for substantially 

all of the production of the domestic 

like product have been met, we hereby 

revoke the antidumping duty order on 

gray portland cement and clinker from 

Mexico in its entirety, effective April 1, 

2009. 

Termination of Sunset Review 

Because we determine that all the 

terms of the Agreement have been 

fulfilled and in accordance with letters 

filed by interested parties that are 

attached in Appendix 12 of the 

Agreement requesting the termination of 

the sunset review on March 31, 2009, 

we hereby terminate the suspended 

sunset review. 

Suspension of Liquidation 

We will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (CBP) to discontinue 

the suspension of liquidation and to 

cease the collection of cash deposits on 

entries of subject merchandise entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after April 1, 2009. 

In addition, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate all entries made on or after 

April 1, 2009, without regard to 

antidumping duties. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(d)(1) and 

777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: March 31, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7692 Filed 4–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–821–819] 

Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Intent To Rescind in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely 

requests, the Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on magnesium 

metal from the Russian Federation for 

the period of review (POR) April 1, 

2007, through March 31, 2008. One 

respondent reported it had no 

shipments to the United States. As a 

result, the Department intends to 

rescind the review in part. 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the remaining 

respondent made sales to the United 

States at less than normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in the 

final results of this administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of the 

respondent’s merchandise during the 

POR. The preliminary results are listed 

below in the section titled ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Review.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hermes Pinilla or Minoo Hatten, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0665 or (202) 482– 

1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department published the 

antidumping duty order on magnesium 

metal from the Russian Federation on 

April 15, 2005. See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium 

Metal From the Russian Federation, 70 

FR 19930 (April 15, 2005) (Antidumping 

Duty Order). On April 1, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15436 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

1This second exclusion for magnesium-based 

reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for 

reagent mixtures in the 2001 investigations of 

magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form 

From the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 

(September 27, 2001); Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium 

From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Not Less 

Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the 

Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 

2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys, 

because they are not chemically combined in liquid 

form and cast into the same ingot. 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on magnesium 

metal from the Russian Federation. See 

Antidumping or Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 17317 

(April 1, 2008). On April 30, 2008, PSC 

VSMPO–AVISMA Corporation 

(AVISMA), a Russian Federation 

producer of the subject merchandise, 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review. On April 30, 

2008, U.S. Magnesium Corporation LLC, 

the petitioner in this proceeding, also 

requested that the Department conduct 

an administrative review with respect to 

AVISMA and Solikamsk Magnesium 

Works (SMW), another Russian 

Federation producer of the subject 

merchandise. On June 4, 2008, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

magnesium metal from the Russian 

Federation for the period April 1, 2007, 

through March 31, 2008. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Requests for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 

31813 (June 4, 2008). 

On December 29, 2008, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results of this 

antidumping duty administrative review 

from December 31, 2008, to March 31, 

2009. See Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Magnesium Metal From the 

Russian Federation, 73 FR 79442 

(December 29, 2008). 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by the order 

is magnesium metal (also referred to as 

magnesium), which includes primary 

and secondary pure and alloy 

magnesium metal, regardless of 

chemistry, raw material source, form, 

shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or 

alloy containing by weight primarily the 

element magnesium. Primary 

magnesium is produced by 

decomposing raw materials into 

magnesium metal. Secondary 

magnesium is produced by recycling 

magnesium-based scrap into magnesium 

metal. The magnesium covered by the 

order includes blends of primary and 

secondary magnesium. 

The subject merchandise includes the 

following pure and alloy magnesium 

metal products made from primary and/ 

or secondary magnesium, including, 

without limitation, magnesium cast into 

ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other 

shapes, and magnesium ground, 

chipped, crushed, or machined into 

raspings, granules, turnings, chips, 

powder, briquettes, and other shapes: 

(1) Products that contain at least 99.95 

percent magnesium, by weight 

(generally referred to as ‘‘ultra-pure’’ 

magnesium); (2) products that contain 

less than 99.95 percent but not less than 

99.8 percent magnesium, by weight 

(generally referred to as ‘‘pure’’ 

magnesium); and (3) chemical 

combinations of magnesium and other 

material(s) in which the magnesium 

content is 50 percent or greater, but less 

that 99.8 percent, by weight, whether or 

not conforming to an ‘‘ASTM 

Specification for Magnesium Alloy.’’ 

The scope of the order excludes: (1) 

Magnesium that is in liquid or molten 

form; and (2) mixtures containing 90 

percent or less magnesium in granular 

or powder form by weight and one or 

more of certain non-magnesium 

granular materials to make magnesiumbased reagent mixtures, including lime, 

calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium 

carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag 

coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, 

feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium 

aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, 

graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth 

metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly 

ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, 

ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and 

colemanite.1

The merchandise subject to the order 

is currently classifiable under items 

8104.11.00, 8104.19.00, 8104.30.00, and 

8104.90.00 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS item numbers are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

merchandise covered by the order is 

dispositive. 

Intent To Rescind Review in Part 

On June 20, 2008, SMW submitted a 

letter indicating that it made no sales to 

the United States during the POR. We 

have not received comments on SMW’s 

submission. We confirmed SMW’s claim 

of no shipments by reviewing customs 

documentation. See Memorandum from 

International Trade Compliance Analyst 

to the File dated March 24, 2009. 

Because we preliminarily find that 

SMW had no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR, we intend 

to rescind the administrative review 

with respect to SMW. If we continue to 

find at the time of our final results that 

SMW had no shipments of subject 

merchandise from the Russian 

Federation, we will rescind the 

administrative review with respect to 

SMW pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

preliminarily determine that the use of 

adverse facts available (AFA) is 

appropriate with respect to AVISMA. 

A. Use of Facts Available 

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

1930, as amended (the Act), provides 

that, if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, subject to 

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

of the Act, significantly impedes a 

proceeding under this title, or provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified as provided in 

section 782(i) of the Act, the 

administering authority shall use, 

subject to section 782(d) of the Act, facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. Section 

782(d) of the Act provides that, if the 

administering authority determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

administering authority shall promptly 

inform the responding party and 

provide an opportunity to remedy the 

deficient submission. Section 782(e) of 

the Act states further that the 

Department shall not decline to 

consider submitted information if all of 

the following requirements are met: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

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

information can be used without undue 

difficulties. 

On January 21, 2009, AVISMA 

notified the Department that it would 

not continue to participate in this 

administrative review and it requested 

the removal of all of its businessproprietary information (BPI) from the 

administrative record. We granted 

AVISMA’s request and have removed all 

of its BPI from the administrative 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15437 

record. We also have instructed counsel 

for the petitioner to destroy all copies of 

AVISMA’s BPI data. See Memorandum 

from Program Manager to Office 

Director dated March 30, 2009; see also 

letters from the Department to the 

petitioner and AVISMA dated March 30, 

2009. 

Because AVISMA has ended its 

participation in the instant 

administrative review and requested the 

removal of its BPI from the 

administrative record, AVISMA’s 

actions constitute a refusal to provide 

information necessary to conduct the 

Department’s antidumping analysis 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) 

of the Act. Moreover, AVISMA’s 

withdrawal significantly impedes 

conduct of the administrative review. 

See section 776(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

Therefore, we find that we must base 

the margin for AVISMA on facts 

otherwise available pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Act. 

Further, absent any response on the 

record from AVISMA, sections 782(d) 

and (e) of the Act do not apply. 

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

In applying the facts otherwise 

available, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the administering 

authority finds that an interested party 

has failed to cooperate by not acting to 

the best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information from the 

administering authority, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this title 

the administering authority may use an 

inference adverse to the interests of that 

party in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. 

Adverse inferences are appropriate 

‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 

103–316, vol. 1 (1994) at 870 (SAA). 

Further, ‘‘affirmative evidence of bad 

faith on the part of a respondent is not 

required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 

1997). 

AVISMA’s request to return or destroy 

the company’s BPI constitutes a refusal 

to participate in the administrative 

review and demonstrates that AVISMA 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to comply with the 

Department’s request for information. 

Therefore, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that, in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available, an adverse 

inference is warranted. See, e.g., Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Circular Seamless 

Stainless Steel Hollow Products From 

Japan, 65 FR 42985, 42986 (July 12, 

2000) (the Department applied total 

AFA where the respondent failed to 

respond to the antidumping 

questionnaire). 

C. Selection and Corroboration of 

Information Used as Facts Available 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous review, or 

any other information placed on the 

record. When selecting an AFA rate 

from among the possible sources of 

information, the Department’s practice 

has been to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner. See, e.g., Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From 

Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). 

As total AFA, we have assigned to 

exports of subject merchandise 

produced and/or exported by AVISMA 

the rate of 43.58 percent which is the 

highest transaction-specific rate we 

calculated in the 2006/07 administrative 

review of the order with respect to 

AVISMA. See Memorandum to File 

from International Trade Compliance 

Analyst entitled ‘‘Transfer of 

Information from Record of 2006/07 

Review,’’ dated March 31, 2009. We find 

that this rate is sufficiently adverse to 

serve the purposes of facts available and 

is appropriate, considering that this 

AFA rate is the highest calculated 

transaction-specific rate determined for 

AVISMA in this proceeding. In choosing 

the appropriate balance between 

providing a respondent with an 

incentive to respond accurately and 

imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior transaction-specific margin 

‘‘reflects a common sense inference that 

the highest prior margin is the most 

probative evidence of current margins, 

because, if it were not so, the importer, 

knowing of the rule, would have 

produced current information showing 

the margin to be less.’’ See Rhone 

Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 

1185, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department shall corroborate secondary 

information used for facts available by 

reviewing independent sources 

reasonably at its disposal. Information 

from a prior segment of the proceeding 

constitutes secondary information. See 

SAA at 870 and Antifriction Bearings 

and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 55574, 55577 (September 15, 

2004). The word ‘‘corroborate’’ means 

that the Department will satisfy itself 

that the secondary information to be 

used has probative value. Id.; see also 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From 

Japan, and Tapered Roller Bearings, 

Four Inches or Less in Outside 

Diameter, and Components Thereof, 

From Japan; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Partial Termination of 

Administrative Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 

57392 (November 6, 1996). To 

corroborate secondary information, the 

Department will examine, to the extent 

practicable, the reliability and relevance 

of the information used. 

In selecting the AFA rate for 

AVISMA, we assigned the rate of 43.58 

percent, which is based on information 

AVISMA submitted in a previous 

segment of the proceeding. Thus, we 

find that the AFA rate of 43.58 percent 

is reliable. Because the AFA rate of 

43.58 percent is based on AVISMA’s 

questionnaire responses and 

accompanying data from the 

immediately preceding administrative 

review, we find that the rate is relevant 

for use in this administrative review 

and, therefore, it has probative value for 

use as AFA. As such, the Department 

finds this rate to be corroborated to the 

extent practicable consistent with 

section 776(c) of Act. 

Therefore, as facts available with an 

adverse inference, we have selected the 

rate of 43.58 percent for AVISMA, the 

highest calculated transaction-specific 

margin we calculated for AVISMA in 

the immediately preceding 

administrative review. We consider the 

43.58 percent rate to be sufficiently high 

so as to encourage participation in 

future segments of this proceeding. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

dumping margin for AVISMA is 43.58 

percent for the period April 1, 2007, 

through March 31, 2008. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15438 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

Disclosure and Public Comment 

We will disclose pertinent 

memoranda concerning these 

preliminary results to parties in this 

review within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested 

party may request a hearing within 30 

days of the publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. See 19 CFR 

351.310. If a hearing is requested, the 

Department will notify interested 

parties of the hearing schedule. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results of 

this review. The Department will 

consider case briefs filed by interested 

parties within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. See 19 CFR 351.309(c). 

Interested parties may file rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The 

Department will consider rebuttal briefs 

filed not later than five days after the 

time limit for filing case briefs. Parties 

who submit arguments are requested to 

submit with each argument a statement 

of the issue, a brief summary of the 

argument, and a table of authorities 

cited. Further, we request that parties 

submitting written comments provide 

the Department with a diskette 

containing an electronic copy of the 

public version of such comments. 

We intend to issue the final results of 

this administrative review, including 

the results of our analysis of issues 

raised in the written comments, within 

120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results in the Federal 

Register. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Because we are 

relying on total AFA to establish 

AVISMA’s dumping margin, we will 

instruct CBP to apply a dumping margin 

of 43.58 percent to all entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR that was 

produced and/or exported by AVISMA. 

The Department intends to issue 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

publication of the final results of 

review. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

If these preliminary results are 

adopted in the final results of review, 

the following deposit requirements will 

be effective upon completion of the final 

results of this administrative review for 

all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication of the final results 

of this administrative review, as 

provided in section 751(a)(1) of the Act: 

(1) The cash-deposit rate for AVISMA 

will be the rate established in the final 

results of this review; (2) for previously 

reviewed or investigated companies not 

covered in this review, the cash-deposit 

rate will continue to be the companyspecific rate published for the most 

recent period; (3) if the exporter is not 

a firm covered in this review, a prior 

review, or the 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 subject merchandise; (4) if neither 

the exporter nor the manufacturer is a 

firm covered in this or any previous 

segment of the proceeding, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the allothers rate established in the LTFV 

investigation which is 21.01 percent. 

See Antidumping Duty Order. These 

cash-deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) 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. 

The preliminary results of 

administrative review and this notice 

are issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: March 31, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7690 Filed 4–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–840] 

Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request by the 

petitioners and two 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 two producers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States. This is the second period of 

review (POR), covering March 1, 2007, 

through February 29, 2008. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that sales to the United States have not 

been made below normal value (NV). 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 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Miriam Eqab, 

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) 482–3874 or (202) 482– 

3693, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In March 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

orange juice from Brazil. See 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 FR 12183 

(Mar. 9, 2006) (OJ Order). Subsequently, 

on March 3, 2008, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of certain 

orange juice from Brazil for the period 

March 1, 2007, through February 29, 

2008. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 11389 (Mar. 3, 2008). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(2), in March 2008, the 

Department received requests to 

conduct an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on OJ from 

Brazil from two producers/exporters of 

the subject merchandise, Fischer S.A. 

Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura 

(Fischer) and Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. 

(Cutrale). In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1), also in March 2008, the 

petitioners (Florida Citrus Mutual, A. 

Duda & Sons, Citrus World Inc., and 

Southern Gardens Citrus Processing 

Corporation), requested that the 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES