Juice Exporter Defends Commerce's Affiliation Finding in AD Case on Brazilian Lemon Juice

The Commerce Department correctly found that lemon juice exporter Louis Dreyfus Co. (LDC) was not affiliated with its unnamed primary fresh lemon supplier and correctly applied a de minimis rate to LDC, the company said in its Nov. 1 reply brief at the Court of International Trade, coming on the heels of a similar brief by DOJ (see 2311020024) (Ventura Coastal v. U.S., CIT # 23-00009).

LDC said that Commerce's decision that it isn't affiliated with its supplier was based on an analysis of the supply contract and purchasing factors. The agency rightly determined that both the relationship was surely contractual and the LDC didn't rely on its supplier because it had other sourcing options for major inputs.

Commerce also correctly calculated LDC's cost of manufacturing for the investigation period to account for the end-of-year fruit cost adjustments, LDC said. During the investigation, LDC told Commerce that it made monthly accounting provisions for its fruit purchases but didn't obtain the final price until year's end. LDC notes that in its cost questionnaire, Commerce defined manufacturing costs as the various costs incurred to produce the finished goods "during the POI" as opposed to other expenses calculated on a fiscal year basis. Ventura "mischaracterized" evidence with its argument that Commerce relied on LDC's financial statements to adjust the cost of production, LDC said.

Commerce also correctly excluded general and administrative expenses from LDC's affiliated entities when calculating the company's G&A expenses, LDC said. Commerce's established practice is to exclude affiliated expenses unless a parent company performed administrative services on behalf of the respondent, which was not the case here, LDC said.

Finally, the exporter argued that Commerce properly rejected petitioner Ventura's untimely request to correct alleged errors in the margin calculation. Ventura knows the request was "clearly untimely," LDC said, because the petitioner didn't appeal Commerce's denial, but only asked the court to require Commerce to change its approach if the court remands the case on other issues. The alleged programming error appeared in Commerce's preliminary determination, but Ventura didn't raise the argument at the time, which was a clear failure to exhaust administrative remedies, LDC said.