Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 59432-59440 [E6-16677]

Download as PDF 59432 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices Dated: October 4, 2006. Thomas F. Futtner, Acting Office Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16815 Filed 10–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration (A–570–848) Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 Administrative and New Shipper Reviews Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is currently conducting the 2004/2005 administrative and new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). We preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’) with respect to certain exporters who participated fully and are entitled to a separate rate in the administrative and new shipper reviews. If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period of review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de minimis. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Erin Begnal, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–1386 or (202) 482– 1442, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Background On September 15, 1997, the Department published an amended final determination and antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 48218 (September 15, 1997). On September 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Notice of Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 70 FR 52072 (September 1, 2005). Based on timely requests from various interested parties, the Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC with respect to the following companies: China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. (aka China Kingdoma Import & Export Co., Ltd. and Zhongda Import & Export Co., Ltd.) (‘‘China Kingdom’’), Jiangsu Hilong International Trading Company, Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu Hilong’’), Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms– Manufactures Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jiangsu JOM’’), Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Sunbeauty’’), Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (‘‘Ningbo Nanlian’’), Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qingdao JYX’’), Qingdao Wentai Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qingdao Wentai’’), Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qingdao Zhengri’’), Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (‘‘Weishan Zhenyu’’), Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xuzhou Jinjiang’’), Yancheng Haiteng Aquatic Products & Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yancheng Haiteng’’), Yancheng Hi–King Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yancheng Hi–King’’), and Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yancheng Yaou’’). See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). The period of review (‘‘POR’’) for all respondents subject to this administrative review is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005.1 1 On July 3, 2006, the Department issued its notice of rescission of antidumping duty new shipper reviews of Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty and Qingdao Wentai, for the period September 1, 2004, and February 28, 2005. See Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 37902 (July 3, 2006) (‘‘Rescission of New Shipper Review’’). Accordingly, this administrative review only covers these companies’ entries not already covered by the above-referenced new shipper reviews. Therefore, this administrative review, for Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty and Qingdao PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Additionally, on September 21, 2005, and September 30, 2005, Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘Xiping Opeck’’) and Xuzhou Jinjiang, respectively, requested new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c). On November 4, 2005, the Department initiated new shipper reviews of Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck covering the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 70 FR 67138 (November 4, 2005). The POR for the new shipper review of Xiping Opeck is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. The POR for Xuzhou Jinjiang’s new shipper review is September 1, 2004, through October 5, 2005. See Memorandum to the File, though Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Expansion of the Period of Review in the New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co. Ltd. (September 22, 2006) expanding the POR to include an entry related to Xuzhou Jinjiang’s sale(s) to the United States made during the normal POR. On February 15, 2006, the administrative review was rescinded for China Kingdom, Jiangsu Hilong, Qingdao Zhengri, Weishan Zhenyu, Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng Yaou, and Ningbo Nanlian, because the requesting parties, the Crawfish Processors Alliance (‘‘Petitioners’’), the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, and Bob Odom, Commissioner (collectively, the Domestic Interested Parties) and Ningbo Nanlian withdrew their requests for administrative review pursuant to section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department’s regulations. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7915 (February 15, 2006) (‘‘Partial Rescission of Administrative Review’’). Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty, Qingdao JYX, Qingdao Wentai, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Yancheng Hi–King remain subject to the administrative review. On February 16, 2006, and February 21, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck, respectively, in accordance with section 351.214(j)(3) of the Department’s regulations, agreed to waive the Wentai, covers entries from March 1, 2005, through August 31, 2005. E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices applicable time limits for their new shipper reviews so that the Department could conduct the new shipper reviews concurrently with the 2004/2005 administrative review of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Postponement of Time Limits for New Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews in Conjunction With Administrative Review, 71 FR 13963 (March 20, 2006). On May 19, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results of the administrative and new shipper reviews until October 2, 2006. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 71 FR 29121 (May 19, 2006). jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Scope of Order The product covered by this antidumping duty order is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) in 2000, and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Respondents On November 10, 2005, the Department issued a quantity and value questionnaire to all respondents for which an administrative review was initiated. The Department received timely responses from: Yancheng Hi– King (November 16, 2005), Yancheng Haiteng (November 22, 2005), Qingdao JYX (November 25, 2005), Xuzhou Jinjiang (November 25, 2005), Weishan Zhenyu (November 25, 2005), Qingdao Wentai (November 25, 2006), Jiangsu VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 JOM (November 26, 2005), Shanghai Sunbeauty (November 26, 2005), and Ningbo Nanlian (November 29, 2005). Both Yancheng Hi–King and Yancheng Haiteng responded to the Department’s request for sales quantity and value information indicating they had no sales, entries or exports of subject merchandise during the POR. Qingdao Wentai indicated that it did not export freshwater crawfish tail meat to the United States between March 1, 2005, and August 31, 2005 (i.e., the period not covered by its semi-annual new shipper review). On November 28, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to the two new shippers: Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck. See letters to Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China, New Shipper Review (9/1/04 - 8/31/05), (November 28, 2005). On December 5, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to Jiangsu JOM, Ningbo Nanlian, Qingdao JYX, Shanghai Sunbeauty, and Weishan Zhenyu. See letters to Jiangsu JOM, Ningbo Nanlian, Qingdao JYX, Shanghai Sunbeauty, and Weishan Zhenyu from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China, Administrative Review (9/1/04–8/31/05), (December 5, 2005). On December 27, 2005, Weishan Zhenyu responded to section A of the Department’s questionnaire. On December 29, 2005, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck submitted their responses to section A of the Department’s questionnaire. Additionally, on January 4, 2006, Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty, Ningbo Nanlian responded to section A of the Department’s questionnaire. On January 4, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its response to section A of the questionnaire. The Department received responses to sections C & D of its questionnaire from Wieshan Zhenyu (January 10, 2006); Xiping Opeck (January 17, 2006); Xuzhou Jinjiang (January 18, 2006); Qingdao JYX (January 19, 2006); Jiangsu JOM (January 20, 2006); and Shanghai Sunbeauty (January 24, 2006). On January 12, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM. On January 23, 2006, the petitioners filed a letter timely withdrawing their request for review of China Kingdom, Jiangsu Hilong, Qingdao Zhengri, Weishan Zhenyu, Yancheng Haiteng, PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 59433 Yancheng Yaou, and Ningbo Nanlian. In addition, Ningbo Nanlian filed a letter, on January 23, 2006, withdrawing its own request for an administrative review. Therefore, the Department rescinded the administrative review for these companies. See Partial Rescission of Administrative Review. On January 25, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its supplemental section A response. On February 2, 2006, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Xiping Opeck and Shanghai Sunbeauty, who replied on February 16, 2006. On February 17, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Shanghai Sunbeauty and Xiping Opeck. On March 2, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Xuzhou Jinjiang, and on March 3, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM. On March 16, 2006, Shanghai Sunbeauty withdrew from the administrative review and indicated it would not respond to the Department’s February 17, 2006, sections C & D supplemental questionnaire. On March 20, 2006, and March 21, 2006, Xiping Opeck responded to the Department’s February 17, 2006, questionnaire. On March 30, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its reply to the importer–specific portion of the Department’s questionnaire. On April 3, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its response to the Department’s March 3, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On April 5, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted its response to the Department’s March 2, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On May 9, 2006, the Department issues a supplemental questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM, and on May 22, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its response. On May 25, 2006, Xiping Opeck responded to the Department’s May 11, 2006, questionnaire. On June 15, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its reply to the Department’s June 1, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. Finally, on July 21, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted its response to the Department’s July 7, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. On August 7, 2006, and August 14, 2006, the Department issued verification outlines to Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck, respectively. The Department conducted verification of the responses of Xuzhou Jinjiang from August 14 through August 17, 2006, and Xiping Opeck from August 21 through 24, 2006. Jiangsu JOM did not allow the Department to conduct verification during production season. See Verification section below. On August 21, 2006, Xiping Opeck submitted E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 59434 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices minor corrections presented at verification. On September 27, 2006, the Department released the verification reports for Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck. See Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China (September 27, 2006) (‘‘Xuzhou Jinjiang Verification Report’’); Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China (September 27, 2006) (‘‘Xiping Opeck Verification Report’’); jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Surrogate Country and Factors On December 16, 2005, the Department provided parties with an opportunity to submit publicly available information (‘‘PAI’’) on surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary results. The Department received surrogate value proposals from Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao Wentai on February 16, 2006. Verification On November 22, 2005, and November 29, 2005, domestic interested parties requested that the Department conduct verification of the data submitted by all of the firms for which the Department initiated an administrative or new shipper review, respectively. However, due to the Department’s resource constraints in conducting these reviews, we only selected Xuzhou Jinjiang, Xiping Opeck and Jiangsu JOM for verification pursuant to section 782(i)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) and 19 CFR 351.307. As noted above, Jiangsu JOM did not allow the Department to conduct verification of the information it placed on the record of the administrative review during production season. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms– Manufacturers Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006) (‘‘Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo’’). For the companies we did verify, we used standard verification procedures, including on–site inspection of the manufacturers’ and exporters’ facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 report for each company. For a further discussion, see Xuzhou Jinjiang Verification Report and Xiping Opeck Verification Report. Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2004/ 2005 Administrative Review With respect to Yancheng Hi–King, the firm informed the Department that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In order to corroborate its submissions, we reviewed PRC freshwater crawfish tail meat shipment data maintained by CBP, and noted no discrepancies with the statements made by this firm. Qingdao Wentai indicated that its semi-annual new shipper review covered all of its exports of freshwater crawfish tail meat which would be subject to the administrative review. Moreover, the Department has determined that Qingdao Wentai’s single sale was not bona fide and could not serve as the basis for the calculation of a dumping margin. See Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review. Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we are preliminarily rescinding the administrative review with respect to Yancheng Hi–King and Qingdao Wentai. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). Bona Fide Sale Analysis – Xiping Opeck & Xuzhou Jinjiang For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Xiping Opeck’s and Xuzhou Jinjiang’s reported U.S. sales during the POR appear to be bona fide based on the totality of the facts on the record. Specifically, we find that: (1) The prices of Xiping Opeck’s and Xuzhou Jinjiang’s sales were within the range of the prices of other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR; (2) Xiping Opeck’s and Xuzhou Jinjiang’s sales were made to unaffiliated parties at arm’s length; and (3) there is no record evidence that indicates that Xiping Opeck’s and Xuzhou Jinjiang’s sales were not made based on commercial principles. While the quantity of Xiping Opeck’s and Xuzhou Jinjiang’s sales were low compared to other entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the POR, absent other factors, single sales of low quantities are not inherently commercially unreasonable. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from P. Lee Smith, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s) Reported by Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006); see also Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from P. Lee Smith, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s) Reported by Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006). Non–Market Economy Country In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) country. Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Surrogate Country Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an NME producer’s factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that (A) are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B) are significant producers of comparable merchandise. Of the five countries identified by the Office of Policy as economically comparable to the PRC, none are significant producers of crawfish tail meat. See Letter to ‘‘All Interested Parties’’ from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations 9, regarding Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) at Attachment I (December 16, 2005). However, India does have a seafood processing industry that is a comparable industry with respect to factory overhead, SG&A and profit. Therefore, we used India as the primary surrogate country to value all inputs with the exception of the raw material (whole live crawfish) and the by-product E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices (crawfish scrap shell). Because we have determined that other forms of seafood are not sufficiently comparable to serve as surrogate values for the primary input and India does not have a crawfish industry, we have considered other countries in which to value the crawfish input. As done in prior segments of this proceeding, we have decided to use Spain as the surrogate country for the valuation of whole live crawfish because we have found that Spain is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, i.e., whole crawfish, and has publicly available import statistics that are contemporaneous to the POR. See Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Administrative and New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Factor Valuation (October 2, 2006) (‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’); and Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Revew, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) (‘‘1999–2000 Final Results’’). In addition, we have decided to use Indonesia as the surrogate country for the valuation of the crawfish by-product scrap because Indonesia is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC, has significant production of merchandise comparable to the byproduct scrap, and has publicly available data (i.e., a public price quote from an Indonesian company) that has been used in prior segments of this proceeding. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu through Maureen Flannery re: Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China, Administrative Review 9/1/00–8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00–8/31/01 and 9/ 1/00–10/15/01 (August 5, 2002), which was placed on the record of this review in the Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 3. We have not received comments from interested parties suggesting other possible surrogate values for these factors and have found no other data. We note that Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao Wentai also suggested the use of Spanish import data to value whole live crawfish. For further discussion of our surrogate country selection, see Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9 and Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 Administrative and New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country (October 2, 2006) (‘‘Surrogate Country Memorandum’’). Facts Available – Jiangsu JOM & Shanghai Sunbeauty For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts available to Jiangsu JOM and Shanghai Sunbeauty. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party: (A) Withholds information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination. The Department expressed a need to conduct verification during production season in order to witness first–hand the production process and the consumption of the reported factors of production during production operations. However, despite several attempts by the Department to find a date which would be acceptable for Jiangsu JOM, the company would not permit the Department to conduct verification during the production season. See Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo. Because Jiangsu JOM would not permit the Department to verify the information it placed on the record of the administrative review, we find that Jiangsu JOM did not provide the Department with verifiable information. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate in reaching the applicable determination for Jiangsu JOM. Additionally, as noted above, Shanghai Sunbeauty submitted a letter to the Department withdrawing from the administrative review on March 16, 2005, in lieu of responding to a request for information. By not responding to the Department’s request for information, Shanghai Sunbeauty failed to provide critical information to be used for the Department’s margin calculation, significantly impeded the review, and provided unverifiable PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 59435 information. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts Available to Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006) (‘‘Shanghai Sunbeauty AFA Memo’’). Therefore, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, the Department must apply facts available. By failing to respond to the Department’s requests for information and by not allowing the Department to conduct verification, Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM, respectively, have not proven they are free of government control and are therefore not eligible to receive a separate rate. In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that if one of the companies on which we initiated a review does not qualify for a separate rate, all other exporters of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of which the named exporter is a part. See Initiation Notice at n.1. For these preliminary results, both Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM will be part of the PRC–wide entity, subject to the PRC–wide rate. According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department 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,’’ the Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the party as 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 (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at 870 (1994). As explained above, the PRC–wide entity (including Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM) would either not permit the Department to verify information placed on the record or informed the Department that it would not participate further in this review and did not respond to the Department’s requests for information. Therefore, the PRC–wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRCwide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 59436 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES to sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) as the basis for these preliminary results of review for the PRC-wide entity. Selection of AFA Rate In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally selects, as AFA, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). The Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) and the Federal Circuit have consistently upheld the Department’s practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16% total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 05–22, at 16 (CIT February 17, 2005) (upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The Department’s practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’ See Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). The Department’s practice also ensures ‘‘that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 2004); D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the appropriate balance between providing respondents 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 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, 899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 223.01 percent, the highest rate calculated in any segment of the proceeding, to the PRC–wide entity (including Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM) as AFA. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002). As discussed further below, this rate has been corroborated. Corroboration of Secondary Information Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and on ‘‘secondary information,’’ the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department’s disposal. The SAA states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The Department has determined that to have probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. See SAA at 870; see also Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: High and Ultra–High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The reliability of the AFA rate was determined by the calculation of the margin based on sales and production data of a respondent in a prior review, and on the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in that review, as well as information gathered by the Department itself. Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. See 1999–2000 Final Results. The Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. This rate has been used as AFA in every subsequent segment of this proceeding and the Department has received no comments challenging the reliability of the margin. No information has been presented in the current review. Thus, the Department finds that the margin calculated in the 1999–2000 review is reliable. With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company’s uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present here. As there is no information on the record of this review that indicates that this rate is not relevant as AFA for the PRC–wide entity, we determine that this rate is relevant. Because the rate is both reliable and relevant it has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate determined in any segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e., 223.01 percent) is corroborated (i.e., it has probative value). Separate Rates To establish whether a company operating in an NME is sufficiently E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each exporting entity under the test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). Under the separate–rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental control over export activities. As discussed above, Jiangsu JOM would not permit verification, and Shanghai Sunbeauty refused to respond to the Department’s requests for information and withdrew from the administrative review. See Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo, and Shanghai Sunbeauty AFA Memo. Therefore, the Department was unable to verify Jiangsu JOM’s and Shanghai Sunbeauty’s questionnaire responses concerning their eligibility for a separate rate. The Department therefore determines that both Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM have not established that they are eligible for a separate rate. See ‘‘Facts Available – Jiangsu JOM & Shanghai Sunbeauty’’ section above. De Jure Control The Department considers the following criteria in determining whether an individual company is free of de jure absence of government control over export activities: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20588. In their questionnaire responses, Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX stated that they are independent legal entities, and evidence placed on the record indicates that the government does not have de jure control over their export activities. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX submitted evidence of their legal right to set prices independent of all governmental oversight. Furthermore, the business licenses of Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX indicate that they are permitted to engage in the exportation of freshwater crawfish tail meat. We also found no evidence of de jure governmental control restricting VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX’s exportation of freshwater crawfish tail meat. In their responses, Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX stated that no export quotas apply to crawfish. Prior verifications have confirmed that there are no commodityspecific export licenses required and no quotas for the seafood category ‘‘Other,’’ which includes crawfish, in China’s Tariff and Non-Tariff Handbook for 1996. In addition, we have previously confirmed that freshwater crawfish tail meat is not on the list of commodities with planned quotas in the 1992 PRC Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation document entitled Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China; Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 8543 (February 22, 1999), and Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999) (Ningbo New Shipper Review). The following laws, which have been placed on the record of this review, indicate a lack of de jure government control. The Company Law of the People’s Republic of China, made effective on July 1, 1994, with the amended version promulgated on August 28, 2004, states that a company is an enterprise legal person, that shareholders shall assume liability towards the company to the extent of their shareholdings and that the company shall be liable for its debts to the extent of all its assets. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX also provided copies of the Foreign Trade Law of the PRC, promulgated on May 12, 1994, which identifies the rights and responsibilities of organizations engaged in foreign trade, grants autonomy to foreign–trade operators in management decisions and establishes the foreign trade operator’s accountability for profits and losses. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX also provided copies of their business licenses stating their right to conduct business within the scope of their licenses. The Department, therefore, preliminarily determines that there is an absence of de jure control over the export activities of Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX. De Facto Control The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control over its exports: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 59437 export prices independently of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the government regarding the selection of management. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have each asserted the following: (1) Each establishes its own export prices; (2) each negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or organizations; (3) each makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) each retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain loans. Moreover, the Department verified that Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou Jinjiang are free of de facto government control. Based upon information on the record, there is a sufficient basis to preliminarily determine that Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have all demonstrated absence of de facto governmental control of their export functions. Therefore, because Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao HYX operate free of de jure and de facto government control, the Department has preliminarily determined that Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have satisfied the criteria for separate rates based on the documentation each has submitted on the record. Normal-Value Comparisons To determine whether Xiping Opeck’s, Xuzhou Jinjiang’s and Qingdao JYX’s sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made at prices below NV, their United States prices were compared to NV, as described in the ‘‘United States Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. United States Price For Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao JYX, the Department based U.S. price on export price (‘‘EP’’) in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the first sales to unaffiliated purchasers were made prior to importation, and constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated EP based on packed prices E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 59438 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES from the exporter to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where applicable, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and ocean freight were deducted from the starting price (gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine NV using a factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) methodology if the merchandise is exported from an NME country and the available information does not permit the calculation of NV using homemarket prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. The Department will base NV on the factors of production because the presence of government controls on various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 29744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in final results). For purposes of calculating NV, we selected surrogate values for the PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to, hours of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital costs, including depreciation. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In choosing surrogate values, we selected, where possible, a publicly available value which was an average country-wide, non-export value, representative of a range of prices within the POR or most contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated Isocyanurates from the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 (December 16, 2004) (‘‘Chlorinated Isocyanurates’’). In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. See Manganese Metal from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12442 (March 13, 1998). VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 Factor Valuations In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao JYX for the POR. To calculate NV, the reported per–unit factor quantities was multiplied by publicly available surrogate values. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to reflect delivered prices. For a detailed explanation of all surrogate values used for respondents, see Factor Valuation Memo. Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using September 2004–August 2005 weighted–average Indian import values derived from the World Trade Atlas online (‘‘WTA’’) (see Factor Valuation Memo). The Indian import statistics we obtained from the WTA were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India and are contemporaneous with the POR. As the Indian surrogate values were denominated in rupees, they were converted to U.S. dollars using the exchange rate for India on the date of the applicable sale. The daily exchange rate was the exchange rate data from the Department’s website, which are taken from publicly available data from the Federal Reserve and Dow Jones. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ index.html. Where we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the publicly available information for inflation using Indian wholesale price indices (‘‘WPIs’’) as published in the International Monetary Fund’s International Financial Statistics (‘‘IFS’’). See Factor Valuation Memo. In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, in accordance with the Department’s practice, we excluded imports from both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass Windshields from the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See, also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Receivers From the People’s Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department’s final determination at 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally, imports that were labeled as originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with generally available export subsidies. Surrogate Valuations To value the input of whole live crawfish we used publicly available data for Spanish imports of whole live crawfish from Portugal. The Department obtained the data from ‘‘aduanas e I.especiales,’’ the Spanish Customs database for foreign trade statistics (Estadisticas Comercio Exterior). See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 2. The Department derived a price for polyethylene bags during the POR from Indian import statistics for HTS subheading 3923.21 from the WTA. See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 4. To value a by-product, crawfish shell scrap, the Department used a price quote from Indonesia for wet crab and shrimp shells. See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 3; see also Surrogate Country Memorandum. Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department’s regulations requires the use of a regression–based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor input, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for China published by Import Administration on its website. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ index.html. To calculate the cost of coal, the Department used Indian import data for steam coal (HTS subheading 2710.19.04 ) for calendar year 2005 obtained from the WTA. See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 7. We valued diesel using the rates provided by the OECD’s International Energy Agency’s publication: Key World Energy Statistics from the first quarter of 2005. See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 9. To value water, the Department used the industrial water rates within the Maharashtra Province of India from June 2003. To achieve comparability of water prices to the factors reported for the POR, we adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation to the POR using the WPI for India, as published in the 2005 IFS. See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 8. To value SG&A, factory overhead and profit, the Department used the 2002– 2003 financial statements from Nekkanti E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices Sea Foods Ltd. (‘‘Nekkanti’’), an Indian seafood processor. See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 11. For foreign inland freight, respondents reported that all raw materials were delivered by truck. Respondents reported the distance of the material inputs in kilometers, from the supplier of the material input to the factory. In calculating the freight rate, the Department used the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To value the cost of truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost based on Indian market truck freight rates obtained from the web site http://www.infreight.com., and inflated the value to be contemporaneous to the POR. To derive the freight cost for each material input, the Department multiplied the surrogate freight value by the freight distance and subsequently multiplied this value by the reported quantity of the input consumed in the production of one unit of the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department added the freight expense to the cost of the material input to determine gross material costs (see Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 12). To value the inland freight expense for packaged crawfish tail meat from the producer to the port of export, the Department used an Indian refrigerated truck freight rate based on price quotations from CTC Freight Carriers of Delhi, India, placed on the record of the antidumping investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the PRC and inflated the value to be contemporaneous with the POR. The Department has placed this information on the record of this proceeding (see Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 13). To value brokerage and handling, the Department used a simple average of the publicly summarized versions of the average value for brokerage and handling expenses reported in the: (1) U.S. sales listings of the February 28, 2005, submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (‘‘Essar Steel’’) taken from the administrative review of Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, for which the POR was December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004, and (2) U.S. sales listings of the March 2, 2006, submission from Agro Dutch Industries Ltd. (‘‘Agro Dutch’’), taken from the administrative review of certain preserved mushrooms from India, for which the POR was February VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 1, 2004 through January 31, 2005. See Certain Hot–Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006); Certain Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); see also Public version of section C questionnaire response from Essar Steel Limited; and public version of section C questionnaire response from Agro Dutch. The reported rates of Essar Steel and Agro Dutch were contemporaneous with the POR. The Department has placed this information on the record of this proceeding (see Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 15). Where respondent used an NME shipper, we valued international freight expenses using freight quotes from Maersk Sealand, a market-economy shipper. These quotes have been used in prior reviews of this case. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 66 FR 20634 (April 24, 2001). We obtained quotes for each month from September 2003 through August 2004, from the PRC to the West Coast of the United States, took a simple average, and inflated the value as necessary. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 14. Finally, we note that Xiping Opeck erred in reporting its electrical consumption and the distance from the factory to port of export. For a more detailed explanation, see Xiping Opeck Verification Report. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are amending the reported consumption of electricity, and the reported distance from factory to port of export. See Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China— Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review of Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006). Currency Conversions We made currency conversions using exchange rates obtained from the website of Import Administration at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ index.html. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 59439 Preliminary Results of Reviews We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for Xiping Opeck and Qingdao JYX during the period September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005; and for Xuzhou Jinjiang during the period September 1, 2004, through October 5, 2005: Company Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. ............................ Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. ........... Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. ............................ PRC–Wide Rate PRC–Wide Rate2 .......... Weighted–Average Margin (Percent) 35.66 0.00 51.60 Margin (Percent) 223.01 2 The PRC-wide entity includes Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM. We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of this notice. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and (2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table of statutes, regulations, and cases cited. Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of this notice. 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 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. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the briefs. The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice. Assessment Rates The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1 59440 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 10, 2006 / Notices all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to these reviews directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of these reviews. For assessment purposes for companies with a calculated rate, where possible, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on a per–unit basis. Specifically, the Department divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. The Department will direct CBP to assess importer– specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR. However, 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 these reviews and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed review; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRCwide rate of 223.01 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:42 Oct 06, 2006 Jkt 211001 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. These administrative, new shipper reviews, and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214. Dated: October 2, 2006. Joseph A. Spetrini, Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. [FR Doc. E6–16677 Filed 10–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–580–844] Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From The Republic of Korea: Notice of Preliminary Results and Preliminary Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: In response to requests by Dongkuk Steel Mill Co. Ltd. (DSM), a producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, and petitioners,1 the Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bar (rebar) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). This review covers seven producers/exporters of the subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. As discussed below, the Department has preliminarily determined to collapse DSM, Korea Iron and Steel Co., Ltd. (KISCO), and Hwanyoung Steel Industries Co. (HSI), into a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. We preliminarily determine that DSM/KISCO/HSI made sales at less than normal value (NV) during the POR. AGENCY: 1 The petitioners are the Rebar Trade Action Coalition and its individual members-Gerdau Ameristeel, CMC Steel Group, Nucor Corporation, and TAMCO. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Further, as a result of our review, we preliminarily determine that three respondents had no sales or shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to these respondents. One remaining respondent, Dongil Industries Co. Ltd. (Dongil), failed to respond to our questionnaire. As a result, we are basing our preliminary results for Dongil on total adverse facts available (AFA). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review. Unless we extend the deadline, we will issue the final results of review no later than 120 days from the date of publication of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: October 10, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Manning or Drew Jackson, AD/ CVD Operations, Office 4, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5253, or (202) 482–4406, respectively. Background On September 7, 2001, the Department published an antidumping duty order on rebar from Korea. See Antidumping Duty Orders: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Belarus, Indonesia, Latvia, Moldova, People’s Republic of China, Poland, Republic of Korea and Ukraine, 66 FR 46777 (September 7, 2001). On September 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of ‘‘Opportunity to Request Administrative Review’’ of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Korea. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 70 FR 52072 (September 1, 2005). On September 21, 2005, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2), DSM requested that the Department conduct an administrative review of its sales and entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. Additionally, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1), on September 30, 2005, petitioners requested that the Department conduct a review of DSM, Dongil, Hanbo Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. (Hanbo), INI Steel (INI), Kosteel Co., Ltd (Kosteel), and KISCO. On October 25, 2005, the Department initiated an E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 10, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59432-59440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16677]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

(A-570-848)


Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of 
China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 
Administrative and New Shipper Reviews

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is currently 
conducting the 2004/2005 administrative and new shipper reviews of the 
antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the 
People's Republic of China (``PRC''). We preliminarily determine that 
sales have been made below normal value (``NV'') with respect to 
certain exporters who participated fully and are entitled to a separate 
rate in the administrative and new shipper reviews. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of these reviews, 
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the period 
of review (``POR'') for which the importer-specific assessment rates 
are above de minimis.
    Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary 
results. We will issue the final results no later than 120 days from 
the date of publication of this notice.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scot Fullerton or Erin Begnal, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
1386 or (202) 482-1442, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 15, 1997, the Department published an amended final 
determination and antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail 
meat from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, 62 FR 48218 
(September 15, 1997).
    On September 1, 2005, the Department published a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Notice of 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review of Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation, 70 FR 
52072 (September 1, 2005).
    Based on timely requests from various interested parties, the 
Department initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC with respect to the 
following companies: China Kingdom Import & Export Co., Ltd. (aka China 
Kingdoma Import & Export Co., Ltd. and Zhongda Import & Export Co., 
Ltd.) (``China Kingdom''), Jiangsu Hilong International Trading 
Company, Ltd. (``Jiangsu Hilong''), Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms-
Manufactures Co., Ltd. (``Jiangsu JOM''), Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading 
Co., Ltd. (``Shanghai Sunbeauty''), Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods 
Company, Ltd. (``Ningbo Nanlian''), Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods 
Co., Ltd. (``Qingdao JYX''), Qingdao Wentai Trading Co., Ltd. 
(``Qingdao Wentai''), Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd. (``Qingdao 
Zhengri''), Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (``Weishan Zhenyu''), 
Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (``Xuzhou Jinjiang''), Yancheng 
Haiteng Aquatic Products & Foods Co., Ltd. (``Yancheng Haiteng''), 
Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. (``Yancheng Hi-
King''), and Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd. (``Yancheng Yaou''). See 
Notice of Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 
Administrative Reviews, 70 FR 61601 (October 25, 2005) (``Initiation 
Notice''). The period of review (``POR'') for all respondents subject 
to this administrative review is September 1, 2004, through August 31, 
2005.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 3, 2006, the Department issued its notice of 
rescission of antidumping duty new shipper reviews of Jiangsu JOM, 
Shanghai Sunbeauty and Qingdao Wentai, for the period September 1, 
2004, and February 28, 2005. See Notice of Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty New Shipper Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 37902 (July 3, 2006) (``Rescission 
of New Shipper Review''). Accordingly, this administrative review 
only covers these companies' entries not already covered by the 
above-referenced new shipper reviews. Therefore, this administrative 
review, for Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty and Qingdao Wentai, 
covers entries from March 1, 2005, through August 31, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, on September 21, 2005, and September 30, 2005, Xiping 
Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (``Xiping Opeck'') and Xuzhou Jinjiang, 
respectively, requested new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty 
order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.214(c). On November 4, 2005, the Department initiated new 
shipper reviews of Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck covering the period 
September 1, 2004, through August 31, 2005. See Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China: Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 70 FR 67138 (November 4, 2005). 
The POR for the new shipper review of Xiping Opeck is September 1, 
2004, through August 31, 2005. The POR for Xuzhou Jinjiang's new 
shipper review is September 1, 2004, through October 5, 2005. See 
Memorandum to the File, though Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot T. Fullerton, International 
Trade Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Expansion of the 
Period of Review in the New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat from the People's Republic of China: Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs 
Co. Ltd. (September 22, 2006) expanding the POR to include an entry 
related to Xuzhou Jinjiang's sale(s) to the United States made during 
the normal POR.
    On February 15, 2006, the administrative review was rescinded for 
China Kingdom, Jiangsu Hilong, Qingdao Zhengri, Weishan Zhenyu, 
Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng Yaou, and Ningbo Nanlian, because the 
requesting parties, the Crawfish Processors Alliance (``Petitioners''), 
the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, and Bob Odom, 
Commissioner (collectively, the Domestic Interested Parties) and Ningbo 
Nanlian withdrew their requests for administrative review pursuant to 
section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations. See Freshwater 
Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
7915 (February 15, 2006) (``Partial Rescission of Administrative 
Review''). Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai Sunbeauty, Qingdao JYX, Qingdao 
Wentai, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Yancheng Hi-King remain subject to the 
administrative review.
    On February 16, 2006, and February 21, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang and 
Xiping Opeck, respectively, in accordance with section 351.214(j)(3) of 
the Department's regulations, agreed to waive the

[[Page 59433]]

applicable time limits for their new shipper reviews so that the 
Department could conduct the new shipper reviews concurrently with the 
2004/2005 administrative review of freshwater crawfish tail meat from 
the PRC. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic 
of China: Notice of Postponement of Time Limits for New Shipper 
Antidumping Duty Reviews in Conjunction With Administrative Review, 71 
FR 13963 (March 20, 2006).
    On May 19, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of the administrative and new shipper reviews until 
October 2, 2006. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China: Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 71 FR 
29121 (May 19, 2006).

Scope of Order

    The product covered by this antidumping duty order is freshwater 
crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, 
whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, 
or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. 
Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole 
crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are 
saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish 
tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 
of the United States (``HTSUS'') under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 
1605.40.10.90, which are the new HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, 
indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') in 2000, and HTSUS numbers 
0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for fish and 
crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for 
convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the 
scope of this order is dispositive.

Respondents

    On November 10, 2005, the Department issued a quantity and value 
questionnaire to all respondents for which an administrative review was 
initiated. The Department received timely responses from: Yancheng Hi-
King (November 16, 2005), Yancheng Haiteng (November 22, 2005), Qingdao 
JYX (November 25, 2005), Xuzhou Jinjiang (November 25, 2005), Weishan 
Zhenyu (November 25, 2005), Qingdao Wentai (November 25, 2006), Jiangsu 
JOM (November 26, 2005), Shanghai Sunbeauty (November 26, 2005), and 
Ningbo Nanlian (November 29, 2005). Both Yancheng Hi-King and Yancheng 
Haiteng responded to the Department's request for sales quantity and 
value information indicating they had no sales, entries or exports of 
subject merchandise during the POR. Qingdao Wentai indicated that it 
did not export freshwater crawfish tail meat to the United States 
between March 1, 2005, and August 31, 2005 (i.e., the period not 
covered by its semi-annual new shipper review).
    On November 28, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to 
the two new shippers: Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck. See letters to 
Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck from Christopher D. Riker, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Freshwater Crawfish 
Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China, New Shipper Review (9/1/
04 - 8/31/05), (November 28, 2005).
    On December 5, 2005, we issued antidumping duty questionnaires to 
Jiangsu JOM, Ningbo Nanlian, Qingdao JYX, Shanghai Sunbeauty, and 
Weishan Zhenyu. See letters to Jiangsu JOM, Ningbo Nanlian, Qingdao 
JYX, Shanghai Sunbeauty, and Weishan Zhenyu from Christopher D. Riker, 
Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9, Import Administration, 
regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of 
China, Administrative Review (9/1/04-8/31/05), (December 5, 2005).
    On December 27, 2005, Weishan Zhenyu responded to section A of the 
Department's questionnaire. On December 29, 2005, Xuzhou Jinjiang and 
Xiping Opeck submitted their responses to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire. Additionally, on January 4, 2006, Jiangsu JOM, Shanghai 
Sunbeauty, Ningbo Nanlian responded to section A of the Department's 
questionnaire. On January 4, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its response 
to section A of the questionnaire.
    The Department received responses to sections C & D of its 
questionnaire from Wieshan Zhenyu (January 10, 2006); Xiping Opeck 
(January 17, 2006); Xuzhou Jinjiang (January 18, 2006); Qingdao JYX 
(January 19, 2006); Jiangsu JOM (January 20, 2006); and Shanghai 
Sunbeauty (January 24, 2006). On January 12, 2006, the Department 
issued a supplemental section A questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM.
    On January 23, 2006, the petitioners filed a letter timely 
withdrawing their request for review of China Kingdom, Jiangsu Hilong, 
Qingdao Zhengri, Weishan Zhenyu, Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng Yaou, and 
Ningbo Nanlian. In addition, Ningbo Nanlian filed a letter, on January 
23, 2006, withdrawing its own request for an administrative review. 
Therefore, the Department rescinded the administrative review for these 
companies. See Partial Rescission of Administrative Review.
    On January 25, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its supplemental section 
A response. On February 2, 2006, the Department issued supplemental 
questionnaires to Xiping Opeck and Shanghai Sunbeauty, who replied on 
February 16, 2006.
    On February 17, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Shanghai Sunbeauty and Xiping Opeck. On March 2, 2006, 
the Department issued a supplemental questionnaire to Xuzhou Jinjiang, 
and on March 3, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to Jiangsu JOM.
    On March 16, 2006, Shanghai Sunbeauty withdrew from the 
administrative review and indicated it would not respond to the 
Department's February 17, 2006, sections C & D supplemental 
questionnaire. On March 20, 2006, and March 21, 2006, Xiping Opeck 
responded to the Department's February 17, 2006, questionnaire. On 
March 30, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted its reply to the importer-
specific portion of the Department's questionnaire. On April 3, 2006, 
Jiangsu JOM submitted its response to the Department's March 3, 2006, 
supplemental questionnaire. On April 5, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted 
its response to the Department's March 2, 2006, supplemental 
questionnaire.
    On May 9, 2006, the Department issues a supplemental questionnaire 
to Jiangsu JOM, and on May 22, 2006, Jiangsu JOM submitted its 
response. On May 25, 2006, Xiping Opeck responded to the Department's 
May 11, 2006, questionnaire. On June 15, 2006, Qingdao JYX submitted 
its reply to the Department's June 1, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. 
Finally, on July 21, 2006, Xuzhou Jinjiang submitted its response to 
the Department's July 7, 2006, supplemental questionnaire.
    On August 7, 2006, and August 14, 2006, the Department issued 
verification outlines to Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck, 
respectively. The Department conducted verification of the responses of 
Xuzhou Jinjiang from August 14 through August 17, 2006, and Xiping 
Opeck from August 21 through 24, 2006. Jiangsu JOM did not allow the 
Department to conduct verification during production season. See 
Verification section below. On August 21, 2006, Xiping Opeck submitted

[[Page 59434]]

minor corrections presented at verification.
    On September 27, 2006, the Department released the verification 
reports for Xuzhou Jinjiang and Xiping Opeck. See Verification of the 
Sales and Factors Response of Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. in 
the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 
from the People's Republic of China (September 27, 2006) (``Xuzhou 
Jinjiang Verification Report''); Verification of the Sales and Factors 
Response of Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping New Shipper 
Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of 
China (September 27, 2006) (``Xiping Opeck Verification Report'');

Surrogate Country and Factors

    On December 16, 2005, the Department provided parties with an 
opportunity to submit publicly available information (``PAI'') on 
surrogate countries and values for consideration in these preliminary 
results. The Department received surrogate value proposals from Xuzhou 
Jinjiang and Qingdao Wentai on February 16, 2006.

Verification

    On November 22, 2005, and November 29, 2005, domestic interested 
parties requested that the Department conduct verification of the data 
submitted by all of the firms for which the Department initiated an 
administrative or new shipper review, respectively. However, due to the 
Department's resource constraints in conducting these reviews, we only 
selected Xuzhou Jinjiang, Xiping Opeck and Jiangsu JOM for verification 
pursuant to section 782(i)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
(``the Act'') and 19 CFR 351.307. As noted above, Jiangsu JOM did not 
allow the Department to conduct verification of the information it 
placed on the record of the administrative review during production 
season. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts 
Available to Jiangsu Jiushoutang Organisms-Manufacturers Co., Ltd. 
(October 2, 2006) (``Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo'').
    For the companies we did verify, we used standard verification 
procedures, including on-site inspection of the manufacturers' and 
exporters' facilities, and examination of relevant sales and financial 
records. Our verification results are outlined in the verification 
report for each company. For a further discussion, see Xuzhou Jinjiang 
Verification Report and Xiping Opeck Verification Report.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2004/2005 Administrative Review

    With respect to Yancheng Hi-King, the firm informed the Department 
that it did not export the subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR. In order to corroborate its submissions, we reviewed 
PRC freshwater crawfish tail meat shipment data maintained by CBP, and 
noted no discrepancies with the statements made by this firm.
    Qingdao Wentai indicated that its semi-annual new shipper review 
covered all of its exports of freshwater crawfish tail meat which would 
be subject to the administrative review. Moreover, the Department has 
determined that Qingdao Wentai's single sale was not bona fide and 
could not serve as the basis for the calculation of a dumping margin. 
See Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review.
    Therefore, for the reasons mentioned above, we are preliminarily 
rescinding the administrative review with respect to Yancheng Hi-King 
and Qingdao Wentai. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Bona Fide Sale Analysis - Xiping Opeck & Xuzhou Jinjiang

    For the reasons stated below, we preliminarily find that Xiping 
Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's reported U.S. sales during the POR appear 
to be bona fide based on the totality of the facts on the record. 
Specifically, we find that: (1) The prices of Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou 
Jinjiang's sales were within the range of the prices of other entries 
of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States during the 
POR; (2) Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales were made to 
unaffiliated parties at arm's length; and (3) there is no record 
evidence that indicates that Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales 
were not made based on commercial principles. While the quantity of 
Xiping Opeck's and Xuzhou Jinjiang's sales were low compared to other 
entries of subject merchandise from the PRC into the United States 
during the POR, absent other factors, single sales of low quantities 
are not inherently commercially unreasonable. See Memorandum to James 
C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, 
through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from P. Lee Smith, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 
from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s) 
Reported by Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006); see 
also Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
9, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from P. Lee Smith, International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 Antidumping Duty New Shipper 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 
from the People's Republic of China: Bona Fide Analysis of the Sale(s) 
Reported by Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006).

Non-Market Economy Country

    In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the 
PRC has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. 
Pursuant to section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a 
foreign country is a NME country shall remain in effect until revoked 
by the administering authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail 
Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006). 
None of the parties to this proceeding has contested such treatment. 
Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the 
Act, which applies to NME countries.

Surrogate Country

    Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires the Department to value an 
NME producer's factors of production, to the extent possible, in one or 
more market-economy countries that (A) are at a level of economic 
development comparable to that of the NME country, and (B) are 
significant producers of comparable merchandise. Of the five countries 
identified by the Office of Policy as economically comparable to the 
PRC, none are significant producers of crawfish tail meat. See Letter 
to ``All Interested Parties'' from Christopher D. Riker, Program 
Manager, AD/CVD Operations 9, regarding Administrative and New Shipper 
Reviews of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of 
China (``PRC'') at Attachment I (December 16, 2005).
    However, India does have a seafood processing industry that is a 
comparable industry with respect to factory overhead, SG&A and profit. 
Therefore, we used India as the primary surrogate country to value all 
inputs with the exception of the raw material (whole live crawfish) and 
the by-product

[[Page 59435]]

(crawfish scrap shell). Because we have determined that other forms of 
seafood are not sufficiently comparable to serve as surrogate values 
for the primary input and India does not have a crawfish industry, we 
have considered other countries in which to value the crawfish input. 
As done in prior segments of this proceeding, we have decided to use 
Spain as the surrogate country for the valuation of whole live crawfish 
because we have found that Spain is a significant producer of 
comparable merchandise, i.e., whole crawfish, and has publicly 
available import statistics that are contemporaneous to the POR. See 
Memorandum to the File, through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding Administrative and New 
Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China: Factor Valuation (October 2, 2006) (``Factor 
Valuation Memo''); and Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Revew, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) (``1999-2000 Final 
Results'').
    In addition, we have decided to use Indonesia as the surrogate 
country for the valuation of the crawfish by-product scrap because 
Indonesia is at a level of economic development comparable to the PRC, 
has significant production of merchandise comparable to the by-product 
scrap, and has publicly available data (i.e., a public price quote from 
an Indonesian company) that has been used in prior segments of this 
proceeding. See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from Christian Hughes 
and Adina Teodorescu through Maureen Flannery re: Surrogate Valuation 
of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's 
Republic of China, Administrative Review 9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper 
Reviews 9/1/00-8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01 (August 5, 2002), which was 
placed on the record of this review in the Factor Valuation Memo, 
Attachment 3. We have not received comments from interested parties 
suggesting other possible surrogate values for these factors and have 
found no other data. We note that Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao Wentai 
also suggested the use of Spanish import data to value whole live 
crawfish. For further discussion of our surrogate country selection, 
see Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9 and Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, from Michael Quigley, International Trade 
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 2004/2005 
Administrative and New Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 
from the People's Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate Country 
(October 2, 2006) (``Surrogate Country Memorandum'').

Facts Available - Jiangsu JOM & Shanghai Sunbeauty

    For the reasons outlined below, we have applied total adverse facts 
available to Jiangsu JOM and Shanghai Sunbeauty. Section 776(a)(2) of 
the Act provides that, if an interested party: (A) Withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; (B) fails to 
provide such information in a timely manner or in the form or manner 
requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) 
significantly impedes a proceeding under the antidumping statute; or 
(D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified, 
the Department shall, subject to section 782(d) of the Act, use facts 
otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
    The Department expressed a need to conduct verification during 
production season in order to witness first-hand the production process 
and the consumption of the reported factors of production during 
production operations. However, despite several attempts by the 
Department to find a date which would be acceptable for Jiangsu JOM, 
the company would not permit the Department to conduct verification 
during the production season. See Jiangsu JOM AFA Memo.
    Because Jiangsu JOM would not permit the Department to verify the 
information it placed on the record of the administrative review, we 
find that Jiangsu JOM did not provide the Department with verifiable 
information. Therefore, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, 
the use of facts otherwise available is appropriate in reaching the 
applicable determination for Jiangsu JOM.
    Additionally, as noted above, Shanghai Sunbeauty submitted a letter 
to the Department withdrawing from the administrative review on March 
16, 2005, in lieu of responding to a request for information. By not 
responding to the Department's request for information, Shanghai 
Sunbeauty failed to provide critical information to be used for the 
Department's margin calculation, significantly impeded the review, and 
provided unverifiable information. See Memorandum to James Doyle, 
Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, from 
Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 
Import Administration, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 
People's Republic of China: Preliminary Application of Adverse Facts 
Available to Shanghai Sunbeauty Trading Co., Ltd. (October 2, 2006) 
(``Shanghai Sunbeauty AFA Memo''). Therefore, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the Act, the Department must apply facts 
available.
    By failing to respond to the Department's requests for information 
and by not allowing the Department to conduct verification, Shanghai 
Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM, respectively, have not proven they are free 
of government control and are therefore not eligible to receive a 
separate rate. In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that if 
one of the companies on which we initiated a review does not qualify 
for a separate rate, all other exporters of freshwater crawfish tail 
meat from the PRC who have not qualified for a separate rate are deemed 
to be covered by this review as part of the single PRC-wide entity of 
which the named exporter is a part. See Initiation Notice at n.1. For 
these preliminary results, both Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM will 
be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate.
    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department 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,'' the 
Department may use information that is adverse to the interests of the 
party as 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 (``SAA'') accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (``URAA''), H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 at 870 (1994).
    As explained above, the PRC-wide entity (including Shanghai 
Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM) would either not permit the Department to 
verify information placed on the record or informed the Department that 
it would not participate further in this review and did not respond to 
the Department's requests for information. Therefore, the PRC-wide 
entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability. Because the PRC-
wide entity did not cooperate to the best of its ability in the 
proceeding, the Department finds it necessary, pursuant

[[Page 59436]]

to sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) of the Act, to use adverse facts 
available (``AFA'') as the basis for these preliminary results of 
review for the PRC-wide entity.

Selection of AFA Rate

    In deciding which facts to use as AFA, section 776(b) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the Department to rely on 
information derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final determination in 
the investigation, (3) any previous review or determination, or (4) any 
information placed on the record. In reviews, the Department normally 
selects, as AFA, the highest rate determined for any respondent in any 
segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 
from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 (April 21, 2003). 
The Court of International Trade (``CIT'') and the Federal Circuit have 
consistently upheld the Department's practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. 
v. United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (``Rhone 
Poulenc''); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (Ct. 
Int'l Trade 2004) (upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA rate, the 
highest available dumping margin from a different respondent in a LTFV 
investigation); see also Kompass Food Trading Int'l v. United States, 
24 CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16[percnt] total AFA rate, the 
highest available dumping margin from a different, fully cooperative 
respondent); and Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 
United States, Slip Op. 05-22, at 16 (CIT February 17, 2005) (upholding 
a 223.01 percent total AFA rate, the highest available dumping margin 
from a different respondent in a previous administrative review). The 
Department's practice when selecting an adverse rate from among the 
possible sources of information is to ensure that the margin is 
sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available role to induce respondents to provide the Department with 
complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' See Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan; Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (February 23, 1998). 
The Department's practice also ensures ``that the party does not obtain 
a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had 
cooperated fully.'' See SAA at 870; see also Final Determination of 
Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 
Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 2004); D&L Supply Co. v. 
United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the 
appropriate balance between providing respondents 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 
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, 
899 F.2d at 1190. Consistent with the statute, court precedent, and its 
normal practice, the Department has assigned the rate of 223.01 
percent, the highest rate calculated in any segment of the proceeding, 
to the PRC-wide entity (including Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM) 
as AFA. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's 
Republic of China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002). As discussed 
further below, this rate has been corroborated.

Corroboration of Secondary Information

    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies 
on the facts otherwise available and on ``secondary information,'' the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that 
information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's 
disposal. The SAA states that ``corroborate'' means to determine that 
the information used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The 
Department has determined that to have probative value, information 
must be reliable and relevant. See SAA at 870; see also Tapered Roller 
Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 61 FR 
57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). The SAA also states that independent 
sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, 
published price lists, official import statistics and customs data, and 
information obtained from interested parties during the particular 
investigation. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post Insulators from 
Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and Final Determination of Sales at 
Less Than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 
2005).
    The reliability of the AFA rate was determined by the calculation 
of the margin based on sales and production data of a respondent in a 
prior review, and on the most appropriate surrogate value information 
available to the Department, chosen from submissions by the parties in 
that review, as well as information gathered by the Department itself. 
Furthermore, the calculation of this margin was subject to comment from 
interested parties in the proceeding. See 1999-2000 Final Results. The 
Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting 
the issue of the reliability of the rate calculation itself. This rate 
has been used as AFA in every subsequent segment of this proceeding and 
the Department has received no comments challenging the reliability of 
the margin. No information has been presented in the current review. 
Thus, the Department finds that the margin calculated in the 1999-2000 
review is reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been 
discredited. See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 1220, 1221 
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been 
judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are 
present here. As there is no information on the record of this review 
that indicates that this rate is not relevant as AFA for the PRC-wide 
entity, we determine that this rate is relevant. Because the rate is 
both reliable and relevant it has probative value. Accordingly, we 
determine that the highest rate determined in any segment of this 
administrative proceeding (i.e., 223.01 percent) is corroborated (i.e., 
it has probative value).

Separate Rates

    To establish whether a company operating in an NME is sufficiently

[[Page 59437]]

independent to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes 
each exporting entity under the test established in the Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), 
as amplified by the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 
(May 2, 1994). Under the separate-rates criteria, the Department 
assigns separate rates in NME cases only if the respondent can 
demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto governmental 
control over export activities.
    As discussed above, Jiangsu JOM would not permit verification, and 
Shanghai Sunbeauty refused to respond to the Department's requests for 
information and withdrew from the administrative review. See Jiangsu 
JOM AFA Memo, and Shanghai Sunbeauty AFA Memo. Therefore, the 
Department was unable to verify Jiangsu JOM's and Shanghai Sunbeauty's 
questionnaire responses concerning their eligibility for a separate 
rate. The Department therefore determines that both Shanghai Sunbeauty 
and Jiangsu JOM have not established that they are eligible for a 
separate rate. See ``Facts Available - Jiangsu JOM & Shanghai 
Sunbeauty'' section above.

De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following criteria in determining 
whether an individual company is free of de jure absence of government 
control over export activities: (1) An absence of restrictive 
stipulations associated with an individual exporter's business and 
export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control 
of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20588.
    In their questionnaire responses, Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, 
and Qingdao JYX stated that they are independent legal entities, and 
evidence placed on the record indicates that the government does not 
have de jure control over their export activities. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou 
Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX submitted evidence of their legal right to 
set prices independent of all governmental oversight. Furthermore, the 
business licenses of Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX 
indicate that they are permitted to engage in the exportation of 
freshwater crawfish tail meat. We also found no evidence of de jure 
governmental control restricting Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and 
Qingdao JYX's exportation of freshwater crawfish tail meat.
    In their responses, Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX 
stated that no export quotas apply to crawfish. Prior verifications 
have confirmed that there are no commodity-specific export licenses 
required and no quotas for the seafood category ``Other,'' which 
includes crawfish, in China's Tariff and Non-Tariff Handbook for 1996. 
In addition, we have previously confirmed that freshwater crawfish tail 
meat is not on the list of commodities with planned quotas in the 1992 
PRC Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation document 
entitled Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities. 
See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of China; 
Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 8543 (February 22, 
1999), and Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People's Republic of 
China; Final Results of New Shipper Review, 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999) 
(Ningbo New Shipper Review).
    The following laws, which have been placed on the record of this 
review, indicate a lack of de jure government control. The Company Law 
of the People's Republic of China, made effective on July 1, 1994, with 
the amended version promulgated on August 28, 2004, states that a 
company is an enterprise legal person, that shareholders shall assume 
liability towards the company to the extent of their shareholdings and 
that the company shall be liable for its debts to the extent of all its 
assets. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX also provided 
copies of the Foreign Trade Law of the PRC, promulgated on May 12, 
1994, which identifies the rights and responsibilities of organizations 
engaged in foreign trade, grants autonomy to foreign-trade operators in 
management decisions and establishes the foreign trade operator's 
accountability for profits and losses. Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, 
and Qingdao JYX also provided copies of their business licenses stating 
their right to conduct business within the scope of their licenses. The 
Department, therefore, preliminarily determines that there is an 
absence of de jure control over the export activities of Xiping Opeck, 
Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX.

De Facto Control

    The Department typically considers four factors in evaluating 
whether a respondent is subject to de facto government control over its 
exports: (1) Whether each exporter sets its own export prices 
independently of the government and without the approval of a 
government authority; (2) whether each exporter retains the proceeds 
from its sales and makes independent decisions regarding the 
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) whether each 
exporter has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; and (4) whether each exporter has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management. See, e.g., Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol 
From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
    Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have each asserted 
the following: (1) Each establishes its own export prices; (2) each 
negotiates contracts without guidance from any governmental entities or 
organizations; (3) each makes its own personnel decisions; and (4) each 
retains the proceeds of its export sales, uses profits according to its 
business needs, and has the authority to sell its assets and to obtain 
loans. Moreover, the Department verified that Xiping Opeck and Xuzhou 
Jinjiang are free of de facto government control. Based upon 
information on the record, there is a sufficient basis to preliminarily 
determine that Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have all 
demonstrated absence of de facto governmental control of their export 
functions. Therefore, because Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao 
HYX operate free of de jure and de facto government control, the 
Department has preliminarily determined that Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou 
Jinjiang, and Qingdao JYX have satisfied the criteria for separate 
rates based on the documentation each has submitted on the record.

Normal-Value Comparisons

    To determine whether Xiping Opeck's, Xuzhou Jinjiang's and Qingdao 
JYX's sales of the subject merchandise to the United States were made 
at prices below NV, their United States prices were compared to NV, as 
described in the ``United States Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.

United States Price

    For Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou Jinjiang and Qingdao JYX, the Department 
based U.S. price on export price (``EP'') in accordance with section 
772(a) of the Act, because the first sales to unaffiliated purchasers 
were made prior to importation, and constructed export price (``CEP'') 
was not otherwise warranted by the facts on the record. We calculated 
EP based on packed prices

[[Page 59438]]

from the exporter to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States. Where applicable, foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses, and ocean freight were deducted from the starting 
price (gross unit price) in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine NV using a factors of production (``FOP'') methodology if the 
merchandise is exported from an NME country and the available 
information does not permit the calculation of NV using home-market 
prices, third-country prices, or constructed value under section 773(a) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.408. The Department will base NV on the 
factors of production because the presence of government controls on 
various aspects of these economies renders price comparisons and the 
calculation of production costs invalid under its normal methodologies. 
See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished or Unfinished, 
From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 
FR 29744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) (unchanged in final results).
    For purposes of calculating NV, we selected surrogate values for 
the PRC factors of production in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act. Factors of production include, but are not limited to, hours 
of labor required, quantities of raw materials employed, amounts of 
energy and other utilities consumed, and representative capital costs, 
including depreciation. See section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In choosing 
surrogate values, we selected, where possible, a publicly available 
value which was an average country-wide, non-export value, 
representative of a range of prices within the POR or most 
contemporaneous with the POR, product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 
e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Chlorinated 
Isocyanurates from the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 
(December 16, 2004) (``Chlorinated Isocyanurates''). In selecting the 
surrogate values, we considered the quality, specificity, and 
contemporaneity of the data. See Manganese Metal from the People's 
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR 12442 (March 13, 1998).

Factor Valuations

    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, the Department 
calculated NV based on the FOPs reported by Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou 
Jinjiang and Qingdao JYX for the POR. To calculate NV, the reported 
per-unit factor quantities was multiplied by publicly available 
surrogate values. As appropriate, we adjusted input prices by including 
freight costs to reflect delivered prices. For a detailed explanation 
of all surrogate values used for respondents, see Factor Valuation 
Memo.
    Except where discussed below, we valued raw material inputs using 
September 2004-August 2005 weighted-average Indian import values 
derived from the World Trade Atlas online (``WTA'') (see Factor 
Valuation Memo). The Indian import statistics we obtained from the WTA 
were published by the DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India and are 
contemporaneous with the POR. As the Indian surrogate values were 
denominated in rupees, they were converted to U.S. dollars using the 
exchange rate for India on the date of the applicable sale. The daily 
exchange rate was the exchange rate data from the Department's website, 
which are taken from publicly available data from the Federal Reserve 
and Dow Jones. See http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. Where 
we could not obtain publicly available information contemporaneous with 
the POR with which to value factors, we adjusted the publicly available 
information for inflation using Indian wholesale price indices 
(``WPIs'') as published in the International Monetary Fund's 
International Financial Statistics (``IFS''). See Factor Valuation 
Memo.
    In instances where we relied on Indian import data to value inputs, 
in accordance with the Department's practice, we excluded imports from 
both NME countries and countries deemed to maintain broadly available, 
non-industry-specific subsidies which may benefit all exporters to all 
export markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand) from our 
surrogate value calculations. See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales 
at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Automotive Replacement Glass 
Windshields from the People's Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 (February 
12, 2002) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 
See, also, Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color 
Television Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 68 FR 66800, 
66808 (November 28, 2003), unchanged in the Department's final 
determination at 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Additionally, imports 
that were labeled as originating from an ``unspecified'' country were 
excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be 
certain that they were not from either an NME or a country with 
generally available export subsidies.

Surrogate Valuations

    To value the input of whole live crawfish we used publicly 
available data for Spanish imports of whole live crawfish from 
Portugal. The Department obtained the data from ``aduanas e 
I.especiales,'' the Spanish Customs database for foreign trade 
statistics (Estadisticas Comercio Exterior). See Factor Valuation Memo, 
Attachment 2.
    The Department derived a price for polyethylene bags during the POR 
from Indian import statistics for HTS subheading 3923.21 from the WTA. 
See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 4.
    To value a by-product, crawfish shell scrap, the Department used a 
price quote from Indonesia for wet crab and shrimp shells. See Factor 
Valuation Memo, at Attachment 3; see also Surrogate Country Memorandum.
    Section 351.408(c)(3) of the Department's regulations requires the 
use of a regression-based wage rate. Therefore, to value the labor 
input, the Department used the regression-based wage rate for China 
published by Import Administration on its website. See http://
www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html.
    To calculate the cost of coal, the Department used Indian import 
data for steam coal (HTS subheading 2710.19.04 ) for calendar year 2005 
obtained from the WTA. See Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 7.
    We valued diesel using the rates provided by the OECD's 
International Energy Agency's publication: Key World Energy Statistics 
from the first quarter of 2005. See Factor Valuation Memo, at 
Attachment 9.
    To value water, the Department used the industrial water rates 
within the Maharashtra Province of India from June 2003. To achieve 
comparability of water prices to the factors reported for the POR, we 
adjusted this factor value to reflect inflation to the POR using the 
WPI for India, as published in the 2005 IFS. See Factor Valuation Memo, 
at Attachment 8.
    To value SG&A, factory overhead and profit, the Department used the 
2002-2003 financial statements from Nekkanti

[[Page 59439]]

Sea Foods Ltd. (``Nekkanti''), an Indian seafood processor. See Factor 
Valuation Memo, at Attachment 11.
    For foreign inland freight, respondents reported that all raw 
materials were delivered by truck. Respondents reported the distance of 
the material inputs in kilometers, from the supplier of the material 
input to the factory. In calculating the freight rate, the Department 
used the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to 
the factory or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory, in 
accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision 
in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To 
value the cost of truck freight, we used an average truck freight cost 
based on Indian market truck freight rates obtained from the web site 
http://www.infreight.com., and inflated the value to be contemporaneous 
to the POR. To derive the freight cost for each material input, the 
Department multiplied the surrogate freight value by the freight 
distance and subsequently multiplied this value by the reported 
quantity of the input consumed in the production of one unit of the 
subject merchandise during the POR. The Department added the freight 
expense to the cost of the material input to determine gross material 
costs (see Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 12).
    To value the inland freight expense for packaged crawfish tail meat 
from the producer to the port of export, the Department used an Indian 
refrigerated truck freight rate based on price quotations from CTC 
Freight Carriers of Delhi, India, placed on the record of the 
antidumping investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
PRC and inflated the value to be contemporaneous with the POR. The 
Department has placed this information on the record of this proceeding 
(see Factor Valuation Memo, at Attachment 13).
    To value brokerage and handling, the Department used a simple 
average of the publicly summarized versions of the average value for 
brokerage and handling expenses reported in the: (1) U.S. sales 
listings of the February 28, 2005, submission from Essar Steel Ltd. 
(``Essar Steel'') taken from the administrative review of Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India, for which the POR was 
December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004, and (2) U.S. sales 
listings of the March 2, 2006, submission from Agro Dutch Industries 
Ltd. (``Agro Dutch''), taken from the administrative review of certain 
preserved mushrooms from India, for which the POR was February 1, 2004 
through January 31, 2005. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 
Products From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 2018 (January 12, 2006); Certain Preserved 
Mushrooms From India: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 10646 (March 2, 2006); see also Public version of section 
C questionnaire response from Essar Steel Limited; and public version 
of section C questionnaire response from Agro Dutch. The reported rates 
of Essar Steel and Agro Dutch were contemporaneous with the POR. The 
Department has placed this information on the record of this proceeding 
(see Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 15).
    Where respondent used an NME shipper, we valued international 
freight expenses using freight quotes from Maersk Sealand, a market-
economy shipper. These quotes have been used in prior reviews of this 
case. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of 
China: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and New Shipper Reviews, and Final Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review, 66 FR 20634 (April 24, 2001). We obtained quotes 
for each month from September 2003 through August 2004, from the PRC to 
the West Coast of the United States, took a simple average, and 
inflated the value as necessary. See Factor Valuation Memo, Attachment 
14.
    Finally, we note that Xiping Opeck erred in reporting its 
electrical consumption and the distance from the factory to port of 
export. For a more detailed explanation, see Xiping Opeck Verification 
Report. Therefore, for purposes of these preliminary results, we are 
amending the reported consumption of electricity, and the reported 
distance from factory to port of export. See Memorandum to the File, 
through Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9, from Erin Begnal, Senior International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 9, regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 
People's Republic of China-- Analysis Memorandum for the Preliminary 
Results of New Shipper Review of Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. (October 
2, 2006).

Currency Conversions

    We made currency conversions using exchange rates obtained from the 
website of Import Administration at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/
index.html.

Preliminary Results of Reviews

    We preliminarily determine that the following margins exist for 
Xiping Opeck and Qingdao JYX during the period September 1, 2004, 
through August 31, 2005; and for Xuzhou Jinjiang during the period 
September 1, 2004, through October 5, 2005:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                       Company                         Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd..........................               35.66
Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.................                0.00
Qingdao Jinyongxiang Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd.........               51.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    PRC-Wide Rate                      Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRC-Wide Rate\2\....................................              223.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The PRC-wide entity includes Shanghai Sunbeauty and Jiangsu JOM.

    We will disclose the calculations used in our analysis to parties 
to these proceedings within five days of the date of publication of 
this notice.
    Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 
30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case 
briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). 
Parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 
requested to submit with each argument (1) a statement of the issue and 
(2) a brief summary of the argument. Parties are also encouraged to 
provide a summary of the arguments not to exceed five pages and a table 
of statutes, regulations, and cases cited.
    Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of 
publication of this notice. 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 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. See 
19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to 
those raised in the briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of these reviews, 
including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such 
written briefs or at the hearing, if held, not later than 120 days 
after the date of publication of this notice.

Assessment Rates

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on

[[Page 59440]]

all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate 
appraisement instructions for the companies subject to these reviews 
directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of 
these reviews. For assessment purposes for companies with a calculated 
rate, where possible, the Department calculated importer-specific 
assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on a 
per-unit basis. Specifically, the Department divided the total dumping 
margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export 
price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise 
sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment 
amount. The Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific 
assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) 
rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject 
merchandise during the POR. However, 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 these reviews and for 
future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon 
publication of the final results of these reviews for all shipments of 
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by 
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, 
the cash deposit rate will be that established in the final results of 
this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit 
will be required); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and 
non-PRC exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash 
deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published 
for the most recently completed review; (3) for all PRC exporters of 
subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a 
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 
223.01 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject 
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit 
rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporters that supplied 
that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next 
administrative review.

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.
    These administrative, new shipper reviews, and notice are in 
accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act 
and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.214.

    Dated: October 2, 2006.
Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E6-16677 Filed 10-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S