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merchandise entered, or withdrawn 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
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15439 

Department conduct an administrative 

review for Cutrale and Fischer. 

In April 2008, the Department 

initiated an administrative review for 

each of these companies. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 73 FR 

22337 (Apr. 25, 2008). Also in April 

2008, we issued questionnaires to them. 

In June 2008, we received responses 

to section A of the questionnaire (i.e., 

the section covering general 

information) from Cutrale and Fischer, 

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) and section D (i.e., the 

section covering cost of production 

(COP)/constructed value (CV)). 

In July and September 2008, we 

issued two supplemental sales 

questionnaires and one cost 

questionnaire to Cutrale. We received 

responses to these supplemental 

questionnaires in July and October 

2008. 

On October 9, 2008, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results in this review until 

no later than March 31, 2009. See 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Notice 

of Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

59603 (Oct. 9, 2008). 

In November 2008, we issued a 

supplemental cost questionnaire to 

Fischer. We received a response to this 

questionnaire in December 2008. 

In December and January 2008, we 

issued a third supplemental sales 

questionnaire to Cutrale, a second 

supplemental cost questionnaire to 

Cutrale, and a supplemental sales 

questionnaire to Fischer. We received 

responses to these supplemental 

questionnaires in January and February 

2009. 

In February 2009, we issued an 

additional supplemental cost 

questionnaire to Fischer. In March 2009, 

we issued an additional supplemental 

sales questionnaire to each respondent. 

Responses to these questionnaires, as 

well as to the additional cost 

questionnaire for Fischer, were received 

in the same month. 

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 

(Cargill), Coinbra-Frutesp, Cutrale, 

Fischer, and Montecitrus Trading S.A. 

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 

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. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of OJ by 

Cutrale and Fischer 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 section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

we compared the CEPs of individual 

U.S. transactions to the weightedaverage 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. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Curtrale and Fischer 

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 orange juice to sales of orange 

juice 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 the 

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. 

Constructed Export Price 

For all U.S. sales made by Cutrale and 

Fischer, we used the CEP methodology 

specified in section 772(b) of the Act 

because the subject merchandise was 

sold for the account of these 

respondents by their U.S. subsidiaries in 

the United States to unaffiliated 

purchasers. 

A. Cutrale 

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 U.S. sales as 

CEP sales because they were made in 

the United States by Cutrale’s U.S. 

affiliates on behalf of Cutrale, within the 

meaning of section 772(b) of the Act. 

Cutrale reported in its U.S. sales 

listing certain futures contract sales 

made during the most recently 

completed review period. Although 

Cutrale should have reported these 

transactions during that review period, 

it did not. In this instance, we have 

included in our analysis those pre-POR 

CEP sales with entry dates during the 

POR because the number of these sales 

was significant. In future segments of 

the proceeding, we will require Cutrale 

to report all sales made during the 

review period under consideration. 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15440 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for billing adjustments and 

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 

reimbursements from the customer), 

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 (i.e., freight from port to 

warehouse), and U.S. warehousing 

expenses. We capped reimbursements 

for brokerage and handling expenses 

and U.S. customs duties, as well as U.S. 

drawback, by the amount of brokerage 

and handling expenses and U.S. 

customs duties, respectively, incurred 

on the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with our practice. See 

Certain Orange Juice from Brazil: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

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

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (2005–2007 OJ from 

Brazil) at Comment 7. 

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., 

bank charges, commissions, imputed 

credit expenses (as recalculated), and 

repacking (offset by pallet revenue)), 

and indirect selling expenses (including 

inventory carrying costs and other 

indirect selling expenses). We capped 

U.S. pallet revenue by the amount of 

repacking expenses. In addition, we 

recalculated 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, below. We also recalculated 

indirect selling expenses for Cutrale’s 

U.S. subsidiary Citrus Products, Inc. 

(CPI) to include financing expenses, 

offset by interest income. Because 

Cutrale did not report financing 

expenses incurred by CPI during the 

POR as requested in our February 13, 

2009, supplemental questionnaire, we 

used the amount reported for the period 

October 1, 2006, through December 1, 

2007, as facts available, under section 

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we 

recalculated indirect selling expenses 

for Cutrale’s U.S. subsidiary Cutrale 

Citrus Juices U.S.A., Inc. to include 

certain bonus payments accrued during 

the POR and included in the company’s 

2007 financial statement, as well as 

financing 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 Cutrale and its U.S. affiliates 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 31, 2009, 

memorandum from Miriam Eqab, 

Analyst, to the File, entitled 

‘‘Calculation Adjustments for 

Sucocitrico Cutrale Ltda. for the 

Preliminary Results’’ (Cutrale Sales 

Calculation Memo). 

B. Fischer 

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 Fischer’s U.S. sales as 

CEP sales because they were made in 

the United States by Fischer’s U.S. 

affiliate on behalf of Fischer, within the 

meaning of section 772(b) of the Act. 

We based CEP on the packed 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. Where 

appropriate, we made adjustments for 

billing adjustments and rebates. 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, bunker fuel surcharges, 

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 and customs 

duty reimbursements), U.S. inland 

freight expenses (i.e., freight from port 

to warehouse or to customer), 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. 

In accordance with sections 772(d)(1) 

and (2) 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), 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. 

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 both 

respondents 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 export price (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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15441 

1Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling expenses, general and administrative 

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

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),1 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 affiliated resellers) 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: Order Processing; 

arranging for freight and the provision 

of customs clearance/brokerage services; 

packing; 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. Accordingly, based 

on these selling function categories, we 

find that Cutrale 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, 

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, strategic/economic 

planning, engineering services, 

advertising, packing, inventory 

maintenance, order input/processing, 

employment of direct sales personnel, 

technical assistance, provision of 

guarantees, and provision of after-sales 

services. Accordingly, based on the four 

selling function categories listed above, 

we find that Cutrale performed sales 

and marketing, 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, 

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. 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 an LOT adjustment nor a CEP 

offset is warranted for Cutrale. We note 

that, while Cutrale is claiming a CEP 

offset in this proceeding, Cutrale itself 

admits that there are no significant 

differences between its sales process 

during the POR of the previous 

administrative review and the current 

POR, with the exception of an increase 

in advertising expenses in the home 

market. See Cutrale’s July 17, 2008, 

section A supplemental response at 

page 6. Consequently, because no 

compelling evidence exists that 

Cutrale’s sales process materially 

changed during the POR of this 

administrative review, we continue to 

find that no CEP offset is warranted for 

Cutrale, as we did in the previous 

administrative review. See Certain 

Orange Juice from Brazil: Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

46584 (Aug. 11, 2008), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. 

2. Fischer 

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, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, 

Fischer reported that it made sales 

through one channel of distribution and 

that the selling activities it performed 

did not vary by the type of customer. 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for home market sales, and 

found that Fischer performed the 

following selling functions: Customer 

contact and price negotiation; order 

processing; arranging for freight; cold 

storage and inventory maintenance; 

sales and marketing support; and 

technical assistance. Accordingly, based 

on the selling function categories listed 

above, we find that Fischer performed 

sales and marketing, freight and 

delivery services, 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, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

home market for Fischer. 

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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15442 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

home markets during the POR were 

made at the same LOT, and as a result, 

neither an LOT adjustment nor a CEP 

offset is warranted for Fischer. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

We found that both Cutrale and 

Fischer had made sales below the COP 

in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 

investigation, the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding as 

of the date of initiation of this review, 

and such sales were disregarded. See 

LTFV Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination: Certain Orange Juice 

from Brazil, 70 FR 49557, 49563 (Aug. 

24, 2005) (LTFV Preliminary 

Determination), unchanged in 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) 

(LTFV Final Determination). 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. 

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 G&A expenses and interest 

expenses (see ‘‘Test of Comparison 

Market Sales Prices’’ section, below, for 

treatment of home market selling 

expenses). 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by each respondent in its 

most recently submitted cost database 

for the COP calculation, except in the 

following instances: 

a. Cutrale 

i. In accordance with the transactions 

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

the Act, we adjusted Cutrale’s cost of 

manufacturing to reflect the market 

value of oranges that were purchased 

from an affiliate. 

ii. We revised the financial expense 

ratio calculation to reduce the 

denominator by the by-product sales 

revenue. 

iii. We revised the G&A expense ratio 

calculation to include goodwill 

expenses in the numerator and to 

reduce the denominator by the byproduct sales revenue. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the Memorandum from 

Gina Lee, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. 

Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 

entitled, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Sucocitrico 

Cutrale Ltda,’’ dated March 31, 2009. 

b. Fischer 

i. We revised Fischer’s G&A expense 

rate calculation to include amortization 

of goodwill and a loss provision on fruit 

contract advances. 

For further discussion of this 

adjustment, see the Memorandum from 

Frederick W. Mines, Accountant, to 

Neal M. Halper, Director Office of 

Accounting, entitled, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Fischer S.A. 

Comercio, Industria, and Agricultura,’’ 

dated March 31, 2009. 

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, rebates, direct and 

indirect selling expenses and packing 

expenses, revised where appropriate, as 

discussed below under the ‘‘Price-toPrice Comparisons’’ section. 

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) or 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 

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 and used the remaining sales 

as the basis for determining NV, in 

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

Act. 

D. 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 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. We made deductions to the 

starting price for foreign warehousing 

expenses (offset by warehousing 

revenue) in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We capped 

warehousing revenue by the amount of 

warehousing expenses incurred on 

home market sales, in accordance with 

our practice. See 2005–2007 OJ from 

Brazil at Comment 7. We also made 

deductions from the starting price for 

home market credit expenses (offset by 

interest revenue) pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. We recalculated 

credit expenses using the formula 

provided in Cutrale’s response. 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 calculated 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. 

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. 

We recalculated packing expenses to 

state them on a packing-type basis (e.g., 

drums in varying sizes). For further 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 15443 

discussion of these adjustments, see the 

Cutrale Sales Calculation Memo. 

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. Fischer 

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. We 

deducted foreign inland freight 

expenses and inland insurance expenses 

in accordance with section 

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

In addition, we made deductions 

under section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act for 

credit expenses (offset by interest 

revenue). We deducted home market 

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. 

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. 

In its February 2, 2009, submission, 

Fischer provided exchange rate data to 

show that the U.S. dollar fell against the 

Brazilian real during the POR, and it 

argued that the Department should 

account for this currency fluctuation in 

its preliminary results calculations in 

accordance with the policy set forth in 

Notice: Change in Policy Regarding 

Currency Conversions, 61 FR 9434 (Mar. 

8, 1996) (Currency Policy Bulletin). The 

Department considers a ‘‘fluctuation’’ to 

exist when the daily exchange rate 

differs from the benchmark rate by 2.25 

percent or more. The benchmark is 

defined as the moving average of rates 

for the past 40 business days. When we 

determine a fluctuation to have existed, 

we generally substitute the benchmark 

rate for the daily rate, in accordance 

with established practice. (For an 

explanation of this method, see 

Currency Policy Bulletin.) See also 

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice from 

Brazil; Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 35892 (June 6, 2000), 

unchanged in Frozen Concentrated 

Orange Juice from Brazil; Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 60406 (Oct. 11, 2000). 

Because we have used the benchmark 

rates here where warranted, in 

accordance with our normal practice, 

we find that no additional adjustment is 

necessary. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

March 1, 2007, through February 29, 

2008, as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Sucocitrico Cutrale, S.A. ...... 0.02 

Fischer S.A. Comercio, 

Industria, and Agricultura. 0.00 

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, Room 1870, 

within 30 days of 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. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. The 

Department intends to issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

the issues raised in any written briefs, 

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 Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (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 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
15444 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 64 / Monday, April 6, 2009 / Notices 

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 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 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 31, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–7691 Filed 4–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Application(s) for Duty–Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we 

invite comments on the question of 

whether instruments of equivalent 

scientific value, for the purposes for 

which the instruments shown below are 

intended to be used, are being 

manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and 

be postmarked on or before April 27, 

2009. Address written comments to 

Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 

3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, DC 20230. Applications 

may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 

5 p.m.at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in Room 3720. 

Docket Number: 09–007. Applicant: 

University of Utah, Consortium for 

Astro–Particle Research, 215 South 

State Street, Suite 200, Salt Lake City, 

UT 84111. Instrument: Electron Light 

Source (ELS) accelerator. Manufacturer: 

University of Tokyo, Japan. Intended 

Use: The instrument will be used as a 

component of a large ground Telescope 

Array, which will allow the scientists to 

calibrate the telescopes by generating a 

particle beam that accurately simulates 

a cosmic ray shower. Justification for 

Duty–Free Entry: No instruments of the 

same general category as the foreign 

instrument begin manufactured in the 

United States. Application accepted by 

Commissioner of Customs: March 10, 

2009. 

Dated: March 31, 2009. 

Christopher Cassel, 

Acting Director, IA Subsidies Enforcement 

Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–7689 Filed 4–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–849] 

Commodity Matchbooks from India: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of commodity 

matchbooks from India. For information 

on the estimated subsidy rates, see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. This notice also serves to 

align the final countervailing duty 

(CVD) determination in this 

investigation with the final 

determination in the companion 

antidumping duty investigation of 

commodity matchbooks from India. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 6, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sean Carey or Douglas Kirby, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3964 and (202) 

482–3782, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the publication of the 

Department’s notice of initiation in the 

Federal Register. See Commodity 

Matchbooks from India: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation, 73 FR 

70968 (November 24, 2008) (Initiation 

Notice). 

On December 10, 2008, the 

Department selected as mandatory 

respondent, Triveni Safety Matches Pvt., 

Ltd. (Triveni), the only producer/ 

exporter of commodity matchbooks 

from India identified in the Petition 

during the period 2005 through 2008. 

The Department found no information 

indicating that there were other Indian 

producers or exporters of commodity 

matchbooks. See Memorandum to 

Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, ‘‘Countervailing 

Duty Investigation of Commodity 

Matchbooks from India: Respondent 

Identification.’’ A public version of this 

memorandum is on file in the 

Department’s Central Records Unit 

(CRU) in Room 1117 of the main 

Department building. On December 16, 

2008, we issued the CVD questionnaire 

to the Government of India (GOI), 

requesting that the GOI forward the 

company sections of the questionnaire 

to the mandatory respondent company. 

On December 19, 2008, the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) 

issued its affirmative preliminary 

determination that there is a reasonable 

indication that an industry in the 

United States is materially injured by 

reason of allegedly subsidized imports 

of commodity matchbooks from India. 

See Commodity Matchbooks from India; 

Determinations, 73 FR 77840 (December 

19, 2008); and Commodity Matchbooks 

from India (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 

4054, Inv. Nos. 701–TA–459 and 731– 

TA–1155 (December 2008). 

On January 7, 2009, we postponed the 

preliminary determination of this 

investigation until March 30, 2009. See 

Commodity Matchbooks from India: 

Postponement of Preliminary 

Determination in the Countervailing 

Duty Investigation, 74 FR 683 (January 

7, 2009). We received a response from 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES