Commerce sets preliminary dumping deposits of 3.37% to 5.28% on Mexican winter strawberries, well under Florida growers' 18.32% claim

The dumping margin Commerce accepted when it opened the case in February was 18.32%, calculated from prices the Florida petitioners gathered^[2]. The rates it actually calculated for Mexican winter strawberries, published Aug. 21, are a fraction of that: 5.28% for Driscoll’s Operaciones S.A. de C.V., 3.37% for Mainland Farms S.A. de C.V. and 4.83% for every other Mexican shipper^[1]. Importers will have to post cash deposits at those rates on Mexican berries entered between Nov. 1 and March 31^[1].

The details: three rates and a seasonal scope

The preliminary determination in case A-201-869 covers a period of investigation running from Nov. 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025, one full winter shipping season^[1]. Commerce examined two mandatory respondents, Driscoll’s Operaciones and Mainland Farms, and calculated constructed export prices for both^[1]. The 4.83% all-others rate is a weighted average of their two margins, using each company’s publicly ranged U.S. sales values^[1].

Commerce will tell U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of covered entries made on or after Aug. 21 and to collect cash deposits at the company rate, or at 4.83% for shippers that were not examined^[1]. A deposit is an estimate. In antidumping orders, the duty finally assessed is the amount by which normal value exceeds the export price on each entry, and Customs collects deposits at the time importers would normally deposit estimated duties^[8].

The scope is broad on product and narrow on calendar. It covers all fresh and chilled strawberries from Mexico, organic or conventional, of any grade or pack, whether stemmed, sliced, washed, waxed, vacuum cooled or “chocolate covered or other coated confectionary items,” including berries further processed in a third country^[1]. The listed tariff lines are HTSUS 0810.10.4020, 0810.10.4040, 0810.10.4060 and 0810.10.4080^[1].

The calendar is the catch. When Commerce opened the case, winter strawberries were defined as those “harvested or entered” from Nov. 1 through March 31^[2]. The preliminary notice drops “harvested or,” leaving the entry date as the test^[1]. Because the season window has not yet opened, the first berries to carry the new deposits will in practice be those entered from Nov. 1 on. Commerce will make a final scope decision alongside its final determination^[1].

The notice lists a “particular market situation” section among the topics in its decision memorandum, without saying what Commerce concluded there^[1].

How did the Florida strawberry case get here?

Strawberry Growers for Fair Trade filed the petition with Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) on Dec. 31, 2025^[3]. The ad hoc group is made up of Astin Strawberry Exchange, BBI Produce (doing business as Berry Boss), Grimes Produce Company, Mathis Farms, Simmons Farms, Sizemore Farms, Sweet Life Farms and Ultra Farms, along with the Florida Strawberry Growers Association and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services^[3]. All eight companies are listed in Plant City, Dover or Wimauma, Fla.^[5].

Industry support was the first hurdle. On Jan. 20 Commerce extended its initiation deadline by 20 days because the petition had not shown backing from producers accounting for more than half of domestic production^[6]. It sent polling questionnaires the next day to growers inside and outside the petitioners’ region, and concluded that support cleared the statutory thresholds whether the industry was measured regionally or nationally^[2].

The regional claim is unusual in farm trade cases. The petitioners defined a 28-state market running from Maine to Florida and west to Texas, Illinois and Wisconsin; California is not on the list^[2]. They alleged rising Mexican import volumes, lost market share, underselling, price suppression and lost sales and revenue^[2]. They named 60 Mexican producers and exporters^[2].

The ITC held its conference Jan. 21 and found on March 10 a reasonable indication that a U.S. industry is materially injured by the imports, sending the case into its final phase^[3]. On May 27 the petitioners asked Commerce to push back its preliminary decision so it had time to collect and analyze questionnaire responses, moving the deadline from June 29 to Aug. 18^[4].

In the field: Florida’s crop against the deposit rates

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) puts the stakes for Florida in its May 1 fruit summary. Florida growers harvested 17,000 acres of strawberries in 2025, up from 14,100 acres in 2023^[7]. They produced 3.57 million hundredweight (cwt), and the value of utilized production reached $714.5 million at an average of $201 per cwt, compared with $147 per cwt two years earlier^[7].

California dwarfs that, with 45,000 harvested acres and $3.68 billion in value in 2025^[7]. Florida’s yield ran 210 cwt per acre, against California’s 615^[7]. NASS withholds the split between fresh-market and processing berries for both states^[7].

For the Plant City and Dover growers who brought the case, the preliminary numbers leave a gap. A deposit of roughly 3% to 5% is what they have for now, not the 18.32% estimate Commerce accepted from the petition at initiation^{[1, 2]}. Whether that matters in the packing shed depends on how importers and buyers treat a deposit that may be adjusted later, which the documents do not address.

For importers and receivers of Mexican fruit, the planning questions are concrete:

• Which rate applies. Fruit produced by Driscoll’s Operaciones or Mainland Farms takes that producer’s rate even if a different company exports it; everyone else pays 4.83%^[1].
• Which loads. Only entries made Nov. 1 through March 31 are in scope^[1].
• Which products. Coated and chocolate-dipped berries and fruit processed in a third country count, so confection and fresh-cut buyers sourcing Mexican winter berries are covered too^[1].

On the Hill and at the trade agencies: the tomato precedent

Antidumping cases run on the Tariff Act’s quasi-judicial timetable, with no vote in Congress. What stands out politically is the petitioner list: a state agency, Florida’s agriculture department, is a member of the group asking for duties^[3].

Mexican produce has been through this before, with tomatoes. Commerce suspended its 1996 dumping investigation of Mexican tomatoes under a string of agreements, signed in 1996, 2002, 2008, 2013 and 2019^[8]. In April 2025 it gave 90 days’ notice that it was pulling out, and on July 14, 2025, it terminated the 2019 agreement and imposed an antidumping order with a 17.09% all-others rate^[8]. A group led by Bioparques de Occidente then asked the ITC to revoke the order on changed-circumstances grounds. On July 20, 2026, the commission found that changed circumstances sufficient to revoke it “do not exist”^[9].

Nothing in the strawberry notices refers to a suspension agreement^{[1, 2, 4]}.

What to watch

• Within five days of publication: Commerce discloses its calculations to the parties, and ministerial-error claims follow^[1].
• Within 30 days of Aug. 21: deadline to request a hearing before Commerce^[1].
• Verification: Commerce intends to verify the respondents’ data. Case briefs are due seven days after the last verification report, rebuttals five days later^[1].
• Early January 2027: the final determination, due no later than 135 days after publication. Driscoll’s asked on Aug. 17 for the postponement and for provisional measures to run up to six months instead of four, and Commerce granted both^[1].
• ITC final vote: if Commerce’s final finding is affirmative, the ITC decides injury by the later of 120 days after the preliminary determination or 45 days after the final one^[1].

The open number is the gap between 4.83% and 18.32%, and whether verification moves the final rates toward either one.