Opinion ID: 209423
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proceedings Before The Department of Commerce.

Text: Appellants are four U.S. orange juice producers, Florida Citrus Mutual, A. Duda & Sons, Citrus World, Inc., and Southern Gardens Citrus Processing Corp., collectively referred to as FCM. Appellees are Brazilian orange juice producers: Citrosuco Paulista S.A. d/b/a Fischer S/A-Agroindustria (Fischer), and Citrus Products, Inc. and Sucocitrico Cutrale SA (Cutrale). On December 27, 2004, FCM filed an antidumping petition with the Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging that sales of two types of frozen orange juice from Brazil were materially injuring the domestic industry. On February 11, 2005, Commerce launched an investigation. It selected Fischer, Cutrale, and Montecitrus Industria e Comercio Limitada (Montecitrus)the three largest Brazilian orange juice importersas mandatory respondents in the investigation. On March 7, 2005, Commerce distributed the standard antidumping duty questionnaire to the Brazilian companies. Section C of the questionnaire asked the respondents to report the unit amount of any customs duty paid on the subject merchandise. Fischer and Cutrale reported figures for import duties that included refunds the companies had received as part of U.S. drawback programs. These drawback programs allow foreign companies to receive refunds of duties paid on merchandise that is exported, or destroyed, within three years of entry into the United States. Over FCM's objection, Commerce calculated the constructed export price using net import duties, which were the duties paid to Customs minus the drawback refunds as reported by Fischer and Cutrale. Fischer and Cutrale argued that the drawback refunds should be used to offset U.S. duties paid as that amount more accurately reflected the actual duties paid by the companies on the imported orange juice. Whether Fischer and Cutrale were entitled to the proposed offset for drawback refunds was an issue of first impression for Commerce. Commerce performed an antidumping analysiscomparing export price or constructed export price in the United States to the normal value in the foreign market. [1] In its Final Determination, Commerce concluded that the applicable statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(2)(A), allowed the offset for drawback refunds. It therefore calculated a constructed export price for Fischer and Cutrale by reducing the U.S. price of the orange juice by the net duties paid. In its Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce explained that calculating net import duties would encompass the net duty experience of the respondents. Commerce further reasoned that the calculation of net import duties was consistent with the statutory mandate to reduce U.S. price by all movement expenses incident to importing the goods into the United States. It concluded that allowing the offset for drawback refunds provided a fair comparison to normal value of the orange juice in the Brazilian market. On February 2, 2006, FCM filed a ministerial error allegation, which asserted that Commerce had erred in calculating dumping margins for Cutrale and Fischer in its Final Determination. On February 21, 2006, Commerce published an Amended Final Determination, in which it corrected various ministerial errors and made minor adjustments to its original calculations, but rejected FCM's challenge to its price calculation methodology. On March 9, 2006, Commerce published its antidumping order as Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Orange Juice from Brazil, 71 Fed.Reg. 12,183 (Dep't of Commerce Mar. 9, 2006).