Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 10689-10698 [E7-4281]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
relevant entries during this review
period. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the
Secretary’s presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties
occurred and the subsequent assessment
of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice
are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.221.
Dated: February 28, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–4279 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–552–802]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the
First Administrative Review and New
Shipper Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an
administrative review and a new
shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on certain frozen warmwater
shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’), both covering the
period of review (‘‘POR’’) of July 16,
2004, through January 1, 2006. As
discussed below, we preliminarily
determine that certain respondents in
these reviews (covering one new
shipper review and sixteen companies
subject to the administrative review) 1
have not made sales in the United States
at prices below normal value. If these
preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of review, we will instruct
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties
on entries of subject merchandise
during the POR for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de
minimis.
DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicole Bankhead (respondent Grobest),
and Matthew Renkey (respondent Fish
One), AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Import Administration, International
Trade Administration, U.S. Department
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 Further, we preliminarily determine to use total
adverse facts available to determine the rate for
eleven of the sixteen administrative review
companies and the Vietnam-wide entity.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9068
and (202) 482–2312, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Background
On February 1, 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register the
antidumping duty order on frozen
warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See
Notice of Amended Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR
5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘VN Shrimp
Order’’). On January 31, 2006, we
received a request for a new shipper
review from Grobest & I-Mei Industrial
(Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’). On
February 1, 2006, the Department
published a notice of opportunity to
request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on frozen
warmwater shrimp from Vietnam for the
period July 16, 2004, through January
31, 2006. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
To Request Administrative Review, 71
FR 5239 (February 1, 2006).
On February 28, 2006, we received
requests to conduct administrative
reviews of 83 companies from the
Petitioner 2 in addition to requests by
certain Vietnamese companies. See
Notice of Initiation of Administrative
Reviews of the Antidumping Duty
Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
and the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 17813 (April 7, 2006)
(‘‘Administrative Review Initiation’’).
On March 17, 2006, the Department also
initiated a new shipper review with
respect to Grobest.3 On March 31, 2006,
the Department initiated an
administrative review of eighty-four 4
2 The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is
the Petitioner.
3 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of New
Shipper Review, 71 FR 14834 (March 24, 2006)
(‘‘New Shipper Initiation’’).
4 AAAS Logistics, Agrimex, Amanda Foods
(Vietnam) Ltd.*, American Container Line, Angiang
Agricultural Technology Service Company, An
Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock
Company (Agifish), Aquatic Products Trading
Company*, Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited*,
Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports, Bentre
Aquaproduct Imports & Exports, Cai Doi Vam
Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex)*,
Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export
Corporation (Camimex)*, Cam Ranh Seafoods
Processing Enterprise Company (Camranh
Seafoods)*, Cantho Animal Fisheries Product
Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex)*, Can Tho
Agricultural Products, Can Tho Agricultural and
Animal Products Import Export Company (Cataco)*,
Can Tho Seafood Exports, Cautre Enterprises,
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10689
producers/exporters of subject
merchandise from Vietnam. See
Administrative Review Initiation. On
May 31, 2006, the Department aligned
Grobest’s new shipper review with that
of Fish One based on a request from
Grobest.5
On July 27, 2006, in accordance with
section 351.213(d)(1) of the
Department’s regulations, we rescinded
the administrative review with respect
to sixty-eight companies. See Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial
Rescission of the First Administrative
Review, 71 FR 42628 (July 27, 2006)
(‘‘Rescission Notice’’). Therefore, these
Coastal Fishery Development, Coastal Fisheries
Development Corporation (Cofidec)*, C P Vietnam
Livestock Co. Ltd.*, C P Livestock, Cuu Long
Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro)*, Danang
Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (Seaprodex
Danang)*, Dong Phuc Huynh Frozen Seafoods Fty,
General Imports & Exports, Grobest & I Mei Industry
Vietnam, Hacota Hai Viet, Hai Thuan Export
Seaproducts Processing Co. Ltd., Hanoi Sea
Products Import Export Corporation*, Hoa Nam
Marine Agricultural, Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct
Fty, Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation
(Incomfish)*, Kien Giang Sea Products Import—
Export Company (Kisimex)*, Kim Anh Co. Ltd.,
Khanh Loi Trading, Lamson Import-Export
Foodstuffs Corporation, Minh Hai Export Frozen
Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, Minh Hai
Export Frozen Seafoods Processing Joint Stock
Company (Minh Hai Jostoco)*, Minh Hai Joint
Stock Seafoods Processing Company (Seaprodex
Minh Hai)*, Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export
Company (Seaprimiex Co)*, Minh Phat Seafood*,
Minh Phu Seafood Corporation*, Minh Qui
Seafood*, Ngoc Sinh Seafoods*, Nha Trang
Company Limited, Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock
Company (Nhtrang Fisco)*, Nha Trang Fisheries Co.
Ltd., Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (Nhatrang
Seafoods)*, Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd.*,
Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import Export
Company Ltd.*, Phuong Nam Co. Ltd.*, Phuong
Nam Seafood Co. Ltd., Saigon Orchide, Sao Ta
Foods Joint Stock Compay (Fimex VN)*, Seafood
Processing Imports Exports Vietnam, Seaprodex,
Sea Product, Sea Products Imports & Exports, Song
Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd.*, Song
Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Soc Trang
Aquatic Products and General Import Export
Company (Stampimex)*, Soc Trang Aquatic
Products and General Import Export Company
(Stampimex)*, Sonacos, Special Aquatic Products
Joing Stock Company (Seaspimex), Tacvan Frozen
Seafoods Processing Export Company, Thami
Shipping & Airfreight, Thanh Long, Thanh Long,
Thien Ma Seafood, Tho Quang Seafood Processing
& Export Company, Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and
Trading Corporation*, Tourism Material and
Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City
Branch), Truc An Company, UTXI Aquatic Products
Processing Company*, Viet Foods Co. Ltd.*, Viet
Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One)*,
Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie Co. Ltd., Viet
Nhan Company*, Vilfood Co, Vinh Loi Import
Export Company (Vimexco)*, Vita, V N Seafoods.
(* these companies received a separate rate in the
prior segment (the less-than-fair value investigation)
of this proceeding.
5 See Letter from Grobest Re: Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Grobest’s
Request for Alignment of New Shipper and
Administrative Reviews, dated May 15, 2006.
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
10690
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
reviews cover 17 6 producers/exporters
of the subject merchandise and the
Vietnam-wide entity.
On August 21, 2006, the Department
extended the preliminary results for the
instant reviews until February 28, 2007.
See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the
People’s Republic of China, and
Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time
Limits for the Preliminary Results of the
First Administrative Reviews and New
Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 50387 (August
25, 2006).
On January 23, 2007, we published a
correction to the scope of the order in
which we clarified that the scope does
not cover warmwater shrimp in nonfrozen form. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil,
Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People’s
Republic of China and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders,
72 FR 2857 (Jan. 23, 2007).
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes
certain frozen warmwater shrimp and
prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean
harvested) or farm-raised (produced by
aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,7
deveined or not deveined, cooked or
raw, or otherwise processed in frozen
form.
The frozen warmwater shrimp and
prawn products included in the scope of
this order, regardless of definitions in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), are products
which are processed from warmwater
shrimp and prawns through freezing
and which are sold in any count size.
The products described above may be
processed from any species of
warmwater shrimp and prawns.
Warmwater shrimp and prawns are
generally classified in, but are not
limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some
examples of the farmed and wild-caught
warmwater species include, but are not
limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus
vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus
merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus
chinensis), giant river prawn
(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger
prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted
shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern
brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis),
southern pink shrimp (Penaeus
notialis), southern rough shrimp
(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern
white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue
6 This
includes sixteen companies subject to the
administrative review and one new shipper; the
administrative review for Grobest was rescinded.
7 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which
includes the telson and the uropods.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western
white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis),
and Indian white prawn (Penaeus
indicus).
Frozen shrimp and prawns that are
packed with marinade, spices or sauce
are included in the scope of this order.
In addition, food preparations, which
are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain
more than 20 percent by weight of
shrimp or prawn are also included in
the scope of this order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1)
Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS
subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp
and prawns generally classified in the
Pandalidae family and commonly
referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any
state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and
prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS
subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and
0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns
in prepared meals (HTS subheading
1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and
prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp
and prawns (HTS subheading
1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted
shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp.
Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based
product: (1) That is produced from fresh
(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled
shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer
of rice or wheat flour of at least 95
percent purity has been applied; (3)
with the entire surface of the shrimp
flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with
the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp
content of the end product constituting
between four and 10 percent of the
product’s total weight after being
dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5)
that is subjected to IQF freezing
immediately after application of the
dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a
shrimp-based product that, when dusted
in accordance with the definition of
dusting above, is coated with a wet
viscous layer containing egg and/or
milk, and par-fried.
The products covered by this order
are currently classified under the
following HTSUS subheadings:
0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06,
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12,
0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18,
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24,
0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40,
1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These
HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and for customs purposes
only and are not dispositive, but rather
the written description of the scope of
this order is dispositive.
Respondent Selection
On April 3, 2006, the Department sent
letters to the Vietnam Association of
Seafood Exporters and Producers
(‘‘VASEP’’) and the Ministry of Fisheries
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
in Vietnam requesting assistance with
distributing the Department’s
questionnaire. On April 25, 2006, the
Department sent a letter to all interested
parties clarifying an aspect of the
separate rates application. Between
April 27 and May 19, 2006, the
Department received Quantity and
Value questionnaire (‘‘Q&V’’) responses
and separate rate certifications from
COFIDEC, Seaprodex Hanoi, CATACO,
FAQUIMEX, HAVICO, Kim Anh, Fish
One, Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. and
subsidiary Western Seafood Processing
and Exporting Factory, Fimex, Grobest,
CAM RANH, Bac Lieu, Thuan Phuoc
Seafoods and Trading Corporation, Ngoc
Sinh, STAPIMEX, UTXI, Amanda, Minh
Phu, Nha Trang Fisco, Viet Foods,
VIMEXCO, Seaprimexco, Kisimex,
Cafatex, Seaprodex Minh Hai, CP
Vietnam, Incomfish, Minh Hai Jostco,
Phu Cuong, Camimex, Cuu Long Sea
Pro, Nha Trang Seafoods, Seaprodex
Danang, and CADOVIMEX.
On May 22, 2006, the Department
resent its Q&V questionnaire and
separate rate application via e-mail and
overnight express delivery to all
companies that did not respond to the
Department’s original Q&V
questionnaire and separate rate
application. See Memorandum to the
file, through Alex Villanueva, Program
Manager, Office 9, from Matthew
Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re:
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Issuance of the Second Round of
Quantity and Value Questionnaires and
Separate Rate Applications/
Certifications. On May 25, 2006, the
Department corrected a mistake to its
May 22, 2006, Q&V follow-up letters
addressed to VASEP and the Ministry of
Fisheries. See Memorandum to the file,
through Alex Villanueva, Program
Manager, Office 9, from Matthew
Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re:
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Quantity and Value Response for Tho
Quang Seafood Processing & Export
Company. On May 26, 2006, the
Department reissued its Q&V
questionnaire and separate rate
application to two additional
companies.
Between June 2 and July 11, 2006, the
Petitioner withdrew its request for
antidumping administrative reviews for
certain companies and certain
companies also withdrew their requests
for an administrative review. See
Rescission Notice. On June 6, 2006, the
Petitioner filed a letter requesting that
the Department select mandatory
respondents through a sampling
methodology. On June 7, 2006, Pataya
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Food Industries (Vietnam) Limited filed
a letter stating that it had no shipments
during the POR. On June 14, 2006, the
Department placed on the record a Q&V
response from Vilfood Co. Ltd. and
Khanh Loi Production & Trading Co.,
Ltd. See Memorandum to the file,
through Alex Villanueva, Program
Manager, Office 9, from Matthew
Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re:
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: No
Shipment Responses from Vilfood Co.
Ltd. and Khanh Loi Production &
Trading Co., Ltd. On June 15, 2006, the
Department met with the Petitioner to
discuss the shrimp administrative
reviews. See Memorandum to the file,
from Chris Riker, Program Manager,
Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India,
Thailand, the People’s Republic of
China and the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Ex Parte Meeting.
On June 16, 2006, the Department
issued its respondent selection
memorandum stating that we selected
Amanda, Fimex, and Phuong Nam as
the three mandatory respondents since
they were the three largest exporters, by
volume, of the remaining companies.
See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from James C. Doyle,
Office Director, Office 9, re:
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Selection of Respondents
(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). On
July 11, 2006, the Department selected
three new mandatory respondents: Fish
One, Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex
(the three largest remaining exporters,
by volume) based on the withdrawals of
requests for review from the three
previously selected mandatory
respondents. See Memorandum to
James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9,
through Alex Villanueva, Program
Manager, Office 9, from Cindy Lai
Robinson, Senior Analyst re:
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Selection of Additional
Mandatory Respondents (‘‘Second
Respondent Selection Memo’’).
Questionnaires
The following sixteen companies
remain in the administrative review:
Aquatic Products Trading Company,
Bac Lieu Fisheries, Camranh Seafoods,
Seaprodex Hanoi, Incomfish, Kisimex,
Nha Trang Company Limited, Nhatrang
Fisco, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd.,
Seaprodex, Sea Products Imports &
Exports, Song Huong ASC Import-
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
Export Company Ltd., Song Huong ASC
Joint Stock Company, Vietnam Fish
One, Viet Nhan Company, and V N
Seafoods.
On March 20, 2006, the Department
issued Grobest the non-market economy
questionnaire. On July 12, 2006, the
Department issued its non-market
economy questionnaire to the three new
mandatory respondents Fish One,
Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex.8
Grobest responded to the
Department’s non-market economy
questionnaire and subsequent
supplemental questionnaires between
April 2006 and November 2006. Fish
One responded to the Department’s nonmarket economy questionnaire and
subsequent supplemental
questionnaires between August 2006
and November 2006. Between August
and November 2006, the Petitioner
submitted comments regarding Fish
One’s questionnaire responses.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate
Values
On June 20, 2006, the Department
sent interested parties a letter requesting
comments on surrogate country and
information pertaining to valuing factors
of production. Grobest, Fish One, and
the Petitioner submitted surrogate
country comments and surrogate value
data between November 16, 2006, and
February 12, 2007.
Use of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘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 subsection 782(d) of the
Act, use facts otherwise available in
reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides
that if an interested party ‘‘promptly
after receiving a request from {the
Department}for information, notifies
{the Department} that such party is
unable to submit the information
requested in the requested form and
manner, together with a full explanation
and suggested alternative form in which
such party is able to submit the
8 Prior to the withdrawal of their requests for
review, on June 20, 2006, the Department issued its
non-market economy questionnaire to the three
mandatory respondents: Amanda, Fimex, and
Phuong Nam, in the instant administrative review.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10691
information,’’ the Department may
modify the requirements to avoid
imposing an unreasonable burden on
that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides
that, if the Department determines that
a response to a request for information
does not comply with the request, the
Department will inform the person
submitting the response of the nature of
the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person the
opportunity to remedy or explain the
deficiency. If that person submits
further information that continues to be
unsatisfactory, or this information is not
submitted within the applicable time
limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e), disregard all or part of
the original and subsequent responses,
as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that
the Department shall not decline to
consider information deemed
‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1)
The information is submitted by the
established deadline; (2) the information
can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as
a reliable basis for reaching the
applicable determination; (4) the
interested party has demonstrated that it
acted to the best of its ability; and (5)
the information can be used without
undue difficulties.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act
states that 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 from the administering
authority or the Commission, the
administering authority or the
Commission * * *, in reaching the
applicable determination under this
title, may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of that party in
selecting from among the facts
otherwise available.’’ See also Statement
of Administrative Action (SAA)
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No.
103–316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994).
1. Fish One Unreported Factors of
Production (‘‘FOPs’’)
For these preliminary results, in
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) of
the Act, we have determined that the
use of facts available is appropriate for
Fish One’s unreported consumption of
salt2 9 and marinade.
Fish One did not report salt2 or
marinade consumption in its three
9 Fish One reported using salt in its production
of shrimp, however, it also uses salt in its
production of ice, which we are referring to as
‘‘salt2.’’
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10692
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
submissions of FOP data dated August
25, 2006, October 26, 2006, and
November 21, 2006. At verification, we
discovered that Fish One used salt2 and
marinade during the production of
subject merchandise. See Fish One
Verification Report, at 10; see also
Memorandum to the File, through Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9,
from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst,
Office 9; Company Analysis
Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Viet Hai Seafoods
Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One),
dated February 28, 2007 at 3. Because
Fish One withheld this data and failed
to report its actual salt2 and marinade
consumption to the Department, despite
multiple opportunities to provide
complete FOP data,10 we are applying
facts available for Fish One’s salt2 and
marinade consumption pursuant to
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
Section 776(b) of the Act states that 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 from the
administering authority or the
Commission, the administering
authority or the Commission * * *, in
reaching the applicable determination
under this title, may use an inference
that is adverse to the interests of that
party in selecting from among the facts
otherwise available.’’ See also SAA
accompanying the URAA at 870. An
adverse inference may include reliance
on information derived from the
Petition, the final determination in the
investigation, any previous review, or
any other information placed on the
record. See section 776(b) of the Act.
In this instance, Fish One failed to act
to the best of its ability to comply with
the Department’s repeated requests for
information regarding all of its FOP
used during the POR, i.e. salt2 and
marinade. Only at verification did it
become clear that these two previously
unreported factors of production
existed. As noted above, Fish One had
several opportunities to provide the
information regarding these two FOPs
and was the sole entity with both
possession and control of this
information; however, Fish One failed
to report the data for these two FOPs.
Throughout the proceeding, Fish One
did not indicate that it was unable to
submit complete FOP information in the
requested form and manner, nor did
10 August 25, 2006, October 25, 2006, and
November 21, 2006 responses to the Department’s
original and supplemental Section C and D
questionnaires.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
Fish One provide a full explanation or
suggest an alternative form in which to
submit the information, in accordance
with section 782(c)(1) of the Act.
Therefore, we find that Fish One failed
to cooperate to the best of its ability
with respect to these FOPs and we are
applying AFA for these two factors used
by Fish One in these preliminary
results, pursuant to section 776(b) of the
Act. As partial AFA for Fish One’s salt2
and marinade FOPs, we are using the
highest single monthly usage rate for
these inputs and applying this monthly
usage ratio to all months during the
POR.
2. Vietnam-Wide Entity and NonResponsive Companies
As mentioned in the ‘‘General
Background’’ section above, based on
withdrawals and subsequent
rescissions, the administrative review
covers sixteen companies. Of those
sixteen companies, only one mandatory
respondent (Fish One) and four separate
rate companies (Bac Lieu Fisheries,
Camranh Seafoods, Incomfish, and
Nhatrang Fisco) chose to participate.
The remaining eleven companies did
not provide responses to the
Department’s requests for information.
On July 12, 2006, the Department issued
the non-market economy questionnaire
to mandatory respondents, Kisimex and
Seaprodex Hanoi. Neither respondent
provided a response to Section A of the
Department’s antidumping
questionnaire by the deadline of August
2, 2006. The Department sent letters to
both companies on August 4, 2006,
stating that the final opportunity to
submit a response to the Department’s
questionnaire would be August 11,
2006, but neither company responded.
Additionally, the nine remaining
companies 11 did not respond at any
point to the Department’s Q&V and
separate rate questionnaires, despite the
fact that these companies, as outlined
above, were given two opportunities to
do so. Furthermore, at no point in the
administrative review did any of these
companies submit comments regarding
their status in this proceeding. As such,
we find it appropriate to apply facts
available to these eleven companies in
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A)
and (B) of the Act. Moreover, we find
that because these eleven companies did
not respond to the Department’s
questionnaires, they did not cooperate
to the best of their ability and therefore,
11 Aquatic Products Trading Company, Nha Trang
Company Limited, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd.,
Seaprodex, Sea Products Imports & Exports, Song
Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd., Song
Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Viet Nhan
Company, and V N Seafoods.
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
adverse facts available is appropriate.
As these eleven companies did not
provide the information necessary to
conduct a separate rate analysis, we also
consider these companies as part of the
Vietnam-wide entity. Therefore, we are
applying an adverse inference to the
Vietnam-wide entity (including the
eleven non-responsive companies) in
accordance with section 776(b) of the
Act.12
As AFA, we are applying the highest
rate from any segment of this
proceeding which in this case is the rate
assigned to the Vietnam-wide entity in
the LTFV investigation. Section 776(c)
of the Act requires that the Department
corroborate, to the extent practicable,
secondary information used as facts
available. Secondary information is
defined as ‘‘information derived from
the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final
determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review
under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870
and 19 CFR 351.308(d).
The SAA further provides that the
term ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the
Department will satisfy itself that the
secondary information to be used has
probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus,
to corroborate secondary information,
the Department will, to the extent
practicable, examine the reliability and
relevance of the information used. The
AFA rate we are applying for the current
review of frozen shrimp was
corroborated in the investigation. See
VN Shrimp Order, 70 FR 5152 (February
1, 2005). No information has been
presented in the current review that
calls into question the reliability of the
information used for this AFA rate.
Thus, the Department finds that the
information 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
12 See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished
or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the
People’s Republic of China: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and
Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR
54269 (September 14, 2006) (‘‘HFHTs Final 2006’’)
and Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/
Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 50184
(August 17, 2000).
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
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
with respect to the rate being used here.
Moreover, the rate selected (i.e., 25.76
percent) is the rate currently applicable
to the Vietnam-wide entity. The
Department assumes that if an
uncooperative respondent could have
demonstrated a lower rate, it would
have cooperated. See Rhone Poulenc,
Inc. v. United States, 899 F2d 1185 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe,
Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT 841 (2000)
(respondents should not benefit from
failure to cooperate). As there is no
information on the record of this review
that demonstrates that this rate is not
appropriate to use as AFA in the current
review, we determine that this rate has
relevance.
As this rate is both reliable and
relevant, we determine that it has
probative value, and is thus in
accordance with section 776(c)’s
requirement that secondary information
be corroborated to the extent practicable
(i.e., that it has probative value).
Verification
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we
conducted verifications of the sales and
factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) for
Grobest 13 and Fish One.14 The
Petitioner submitted pre-verification
13 The verification of Grobest’s sales and FOPs
and that of its affiliated United States importer
Ocean Duke took place from November 29, 2006,
through December 8, 2006. See Memorandum to the
file through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager,
Office 9, Import Administration, from Nicole
Bankhead, Analyst, Office 9: Verification of the
Sales and Factors Response of Grobest & I-Mei
Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’) and its
affiliate Ocean Duke in the Antidumping New
Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
14 The verification of Fish One’s sales and FOPs
took place from December 11, 2006, through
December 15, 2006. See Memorandum to the file
through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office
9, Import Administration, from Matthew Renkey,
Senior Case Analyst, Office 9: Verification of the
Sales and Factors Response of Vietnam Fish One
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fish One’’) in the Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
comments for Fish One on November
20, 2006.
New Shipper Reviews Bona Fide
Analysis
Consistent with the Department’s
practice, we investigated the bona fide
nature of the sale made by Grobest for
the new shipper review. We
preliminarily find that the new shipper
sale made by Grobest is a bona fide
transaction. Based on our investigation
into the bona fide nature of the sale, the
questionnaire responses submitted by
Grobest, and our verification thereof, as
well the company’s eligibility for a
separate rate (see Separate Rates section
below) and the Department’s
preliminary determination that Grobest
was not affiliated with any exporter or
producer that had previously shipped
subject merchandise to the United
States, we preliminarily determine that
Grobest has met the requirements to
qualify as a new shipper during the
POR. Therefore, for purposes of these
preliminary results of review, we are
treating Grobest’s respective sale of
subject merchandise to the United
States as an appropriate transaction for
this new shipper review.15
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam
has been treated as a non-market
economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See Brake
Rotors From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of the 2004/2005
Administrative Review and Notice of
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14,
2006). None of the parties to this
proceeding have contested such
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated
normal value (‘‘NV’’) in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies
to NME countries.
Separate Rates Determination
A designation as an NME remains in
effect until it is revoked by the
Department. See section 771(18)(C) of
the Act. Accordingly, there is a
rebuttable presumption that all
15 See Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead,
Senior Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva,
Program Manager, Office 9, to James C. Doyle,
Director, Office 9: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in
the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp: Grobest, dated
February 28, 2007 (‘‘Grobest Prelim Bona Fide
Memo’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10693
companies within Vietnam are subject
to government control and, thus, should
be assessed a single antidumping duty
rate. It is the Department’s standard
policy to assign all exporters of the
merchandise subject to review in NME
countries a single rate unless an
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate
an absence of government control, both
in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto),
with respect to exports. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently
independent to be entitled to a separate,
company-specific rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity in an
NME country 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), as amplified by the
Notice of Final Determination of Sales
at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People’s Republic of China, 59
FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon
Carbide’’).
A. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the
following de jure criteria in determining
whether an individual company may be
granted a separate rate: (1) An absence
of restrictive stipulations associated
with an individual exporter’s business
and export licenses; and (2) any
legislative enactments decentralizing
control of companies.
In the LTFV investigation for this
case, the Department granted separate
rates to Fish One, the only mandatory
respondent in the instant review, and to
the four participating separate rate
respondents, Nha Trang Fisco, Bac Lieu
Fisheries, Cam Ranh Seafoods, and
Incomfish. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,
69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004) and
accompanying Memorandum to James
C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD
Enforcement, NME Unit, Office IX,
THROUGH: Alex Villanueva, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, NME
Unit, Office IX , FROM: Nicole
Bankhead, Case Analyst, re:
Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Final Determination Separate
Rates Memorandum for Section A
Respondents; see also VN Shrimp
Order, 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005)
and accompanying MEMORANDUM
TO: James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office 9, THROUGH:
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office 9, FROM:
Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, and
Paul Walker, Case Analyst, RE:
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
10694
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
Antidumping Duty Investigation of
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations
at Comments 7,8,9,10, and 11. However,
it is the Department’s policy to evaluate
separate rates questionnaire responses
each time a respondent makes a separate
rates claim, regardless of whether the
respondent received a separate rate in
the past. See Manganese Metal From the
People’s Republic of China, Final
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998).
In this review, only Fish One,
Grobest, and the four participating
separate rate companies submitted
complete responses to the separate rates
section of the Department’s NME
questionnaire. The evidence submitted
by these companies includes
government laws and regulations on
corporate ownership, business licenses,
and narrative information regarding the
companies’ operations and selection of
management. The evidence provided by
these companies supports a finding of a
de jure absence of governmental control
over their export activities. We have no
information in this proceeding that
would cause us to reconsider this
determination. Thus, we believe that the
evidence on the record supports a
preliminary finding of an absence of de
jure government control based on: (1)
An absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with the exporter’s business
license; and (2) the legal authority on
the record decentralizing control over
the respondents.16
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
B. Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto governmental
control over exports is based on whether
the Respondent: (1) Sets its own export
prices independent of the government
and other exporters; (2) retains the
proceeds from its export sales and
makes independent decisions regarding
the disposition of profits or financing of
losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate
and sign contracts and other
agreements; and (4) has autonomy from
the government regarding the selection
of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59
FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589;
see also 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).
16 The preliminary finding applies to (1) the one
mandatory participating respondent of this
administrative review: Fish One; (2) the new
shipper company under review; Grobest; and (3) the
non-selected respondents of this administrative
review seeking a separate rate: Nha Trang Fisco, Bac
Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh Seafoods, and Incomfish.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
In their questionnaire responses, Fish
One and the separate rate companies
submitted evidence indicating an
absence of de facto governmental
control over their export activities.
Specifically, this evidence indicates
that: (1) Each company sets its own
export prices independent of the
government and without the approval of
a government authority; (2) each
company retains the proceeds from its
sales and makes independent decisions
regarding the disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) each company
has a general manager, branch manager
or division manager with the authority
to negotiate and bind the company in an
agreement; (4) the general manager is
selected by the board of directors or
company employees, and the general
manager appoints the deputy managers
and the manager of each department;
and (5) there is no restriction on any of
the companies use of export revenues.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily
finds that Fish One and the separate rate
companies have established prima facie
that they qualify for separate rates under
the criteria established by Silicon
Carbide and Sparklers. Additionally,
Grobest reported that it is wholly owned
by foreign entities. Therefore, an
additional separate-rates analysis is not
necessary to determine whether
Grobest’s export activities are
independent from government control.
See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine
Monohydrate from the People’s
Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105
(December 20, 1999) (where the
respondent was wholly foreign-owned,
thus, qualified for a separate rate).
Separate Rate Calculation
Based on timely requests from
individual exporters and petitioners, the
Department originally initiated this
review with respect to 84 companies.
During the course of the review,
numerous requests for review were
withdrawn; however, the Department
employed a limited examination
methodology, as it did not have the
resources to examine all companies for
which a review request was made. As
stated previously, the Department
selected three exporters, Fish One,
Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex as
mandatory respondents in this review.
Four additional companies (Nha Trang
Fisco, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh
Seafoods and Incomfish) submitted
timely information as requested by the
Department and remain subject to
review as cooperative separate rate
respondents.
Fish One participated fully in this
review and is receiving a preliminary
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
antidumping duty rate of zero. As noted
above, however, the remaining two
mandatory respondents, Seaprodex
Hanoi and Kisimex, did not respond to
our questionnaires. As a result, these
two entities are not entitled to a separate
rate in this review and thus are
considered to be part of the Vietnamwide entity. As part of the Vietnamwide entity, these two companies are
receiving a preliminary antidumping
duty rate of 25.76 percent.
The Department must also assign a
rate to the remaining four cooperative
separate rate respondents not selected
for individual examination. We note
that the statute and the Department’s
regulations do not directly address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for
examination where the Department
limited its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to
section 777(A)(c)(2) of the Act. The
Department’s practice in this regard, in
cases involving limited selection based
on exporters accounting for the largest
volumes of trade, has been to weightaverage the rates for the selected
companies excluding zero and de
minimis rates and rates based entirely
on adverse facts available. In the instant
review, however, the rates for the
mandatory respondents include only a
single zero rate and a rate for the
Vietnam-wide entity based on total
AFA.
While the statute does not specifically
address this particular set of
circumstances, section 735(c)(5)(B) of
the Act does specify the methodology to
be followed when a similar fact pattern
arises in the context of the all-others
rate established in an investigation.
While not entirely analogous to the
determination of a rate to be applied to
responsive separate rate respondents in
the context of a NME review, we find it
to be instructive in these circumstances.
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act states
that in situations where the estimated
weighted-average dumping margins
established for all exporters and
producers individually investigated are
zero or de minimis, or are determined
entirely under section 776 (facts
available section), ‘‘the administering
authority may use any reasonable
method to establish the estimated allothers rate for exporters and producers
not individually investigated, including
averaging the weighted-average
dumping margins determined for the
exporters and producers individually
investigated.’’
The Statement of Administrative
Action (‘‘SAA’’) states that in using any
reasonable method to calculate the allothers rate, ‘‘the expected method in
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
such cases will be to weight-average the
zero and de minimis margins and
margins determined pursuant to the
facts available, provided that volume
data is available.’’ See SAA
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.Doc. 316, Vol 1.,
103rd Cong (1994)(SAA) at 203.
However, the SAA also provides that:
[I]f this method is not feasible, or if it
results in an average that would not be
reasonably reflective of potential
dumping margins for non-investigated
exporters or producers, Commerce may
use other reasonable means.’’ Id.
In this case, because of the nature of
the shrimp industry, the Department
preliminarily concludes that it cannot
accurately determine a margin based on
information provided by the separate
rate entities, furthermore, we
preliminarily find that we cannot
employ such alternative methods as
weight-averaging AFA, de minimis, and
zero rates or partial use of the
information on the record. Specifically,
while the separate rates entities have
given us total volume and value
information with respect to subject
merchandise, we note that shrimp
prices vary dramatically, principally
due to count-size. Thus, margins
calculated on the basis of average prices
without regard to count size and other
factors do not reflect a meaningful,
accurate comparison. Because the
Department does not have comparable
information with respect to the count
sizes sold by the separate entities, we
find we must look to other reasonable
means to determine an appropriate
margin for the separate rate entities
subject to this review.
The Department has preliminarily
determined to apply the margin
calculated for cooperative separate rate
respondents in the immediately
preceding segment of this proceeding,
i.e., the margin of 4.57 percent assigned
to such companies in the LTFV
investigation. We believe this
methodology constitutes a reasonable
method by which to calculate such rate.
The rate of 4.57 percent calculated in
the LTFV was based on the
Department’s thorough examination of
several cooperative companies
accounting for a majority of exports
during the period of investigation. We
believe, therefore, that this rate is
reflective of the range of commercial
behavior demonstrated by exporters of
the subject merchandise during a very
recent period in time. Therefore, we
find it a reasonable means by which to
determine a rate for non-examined
cooperative separate entities and have
employed this methodology for
purposes of these preliminary results.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,
in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s factors of production
(‘‘FOPs’’), valued in a surrogate market
economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
factors of production, the Department
shall utilize, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more
market economy countries that are: (1)
At a level of economic development
comparable to that of the NME country;
and (2) significant producers of
comparable merchandise. The sources
of the surrogate factor values are
discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’
section below and in Memorandum to
the File through Alex Villanueva,
Program Manager, Office 9 from
Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office
9: Antidumping Duty Administrative
and New Shipper Reviews of Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate
Values for the Preliminary Results,
February 28, 2007 (‘‘Factor Valuation
Memo’’).
As discussed in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’
section, the Department considers
Vietnam to be an NME country. The
Department has treated Vietnam as an
NME country in all previous
antidumping proceedings. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. None of the
parties to this proceeding contested
such treatment. Accordingly, we treated
Vietnam as an NME country for
purposes of this review and calculated
NV, pursuant to section 773(c) of the
Act, by valuing the FOPs in a surrogate
country.
The Department determined that
Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka,
and Indonesia are countries comparable
to Vietnam in terms of economic
development.17 Moreover, it is the
Department’s practice to select an
appropriate surrogate country based on
17 Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director,
Office of Policy, to Jim Doyle, Office Director, AD/
CVD Enforcement, Office 9: New Shipper Review of
Certain Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Request
for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated June 20,
2006, at Attachment I; Memorandum from Ron
Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Jim Doyle,
Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Warmwater Shrimp (‘‘Shrimp’’) from
Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries
dated June 20, 2006, at Attachment II (‘‘Surrogate
Country Lists’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10695
the availability and reliability of data
from the countries. See Department
Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market
Economy Surrogate Country Selection
Process, (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy
Bulletin’’). In this case, we have found
that Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India
are all significant producers of
comparable merchandise. We find
Bangladesh to be a reliable source for
surrogate values because Bangladesh is
at a similar level of economic
development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of
the Act, is a significant producer of
comparable merchandise, and has
publicly available and reliable data. See
Memorandum to the File, through James
C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9,
Import Administration, from Nicole
Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst, Subject:
First Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Review and Administrative Review of
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Selection of a Surrogate Country,
(February 28, 2007) (‘‘Surrogate Country
Memo’’). Furthermore, we note that
Bangladesh has been the primary
surrogate country in past segments and
both the Petitioner and Respondents
submitted surrogate values based on
Bangladeshi data that are
contemporaneous to the POR, which
gives further credence to the use of
Bangladesh as a surrogate country.
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in
an antidumping administrative review
and a new shipper review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value FOPs within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results.
U.S. Price
A. Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of
the Act, we calculated the export price
(‘‘EP’’) for sales to the United States for
Fish One because the first sale to an
unaffiliated party was made before the
date of importation and the use of
constructed EP (‘‘CEP’’) was not
otherwise warranted. We calculated EP
based on the price to unaffiliated
purchasers in the United States. In
accordance with section 772(c) of the
Act, as appropriate, we deducted from
the starting price to unaffiliated
purchasers foreign inland freight and
brokerage and handling. Each of these
services was either provided by an NME
vendor or paid for using an NME
currency. Thus, we based the deduction
of these movement charges on surrogate
values. Additionally, for international
freight provided by a market economy
provider and paid in U.S. dollars, we
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
10696
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
used the actual cost per kilogram of the
freight. See Factor Valuation Memo for
details regarding the surrogate values for
movement expenses.
B. Constructed Export Price
For Grobest, we based U.S. price on
CEP in accordance with section 772(b)
of the Act, because sales were made on
behalf of the Vietnam-based company
by its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated
purchasers. For Grobest’s sales, we
based CEP on prices to the first
unaffiliated purchaser in the United
States. Where appropriate, we made
deductions from the starting price (gross
unit price) for foreign movement
expenses, international movement
expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and
appropriate selling adjustments, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of
the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, we also deducted those
selling expenses associated with
economic activities occurring in the
United States. We deducted, where
appropriate, commissions, inventory
carrying costs, credit expenses, and
indirect selling expenses. Where foreign
movement expenses, international
movement expenses, or U.S. movement
expenses were provided by Vietnam
service providers or paid for in
Vietnamese Dong, we valued these
services using surrogate values (see
‘‘Factors of Production’’ section below
for further discussion). For those
expenses that were provided by a
market-economy provider and paid for
in market-economy currency, we used
the reported expense. Due to the
proprietary nature of certain
adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed
description of all adjustments made to
U.S. price for Grobest, see Memorandum
to the File, through Alex Villanueva,
Program Manager, Office 9, from Nicole
Bankhead, Senior Analyst, Office 9;
Company Analysis Memorandum in the
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review
of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam)
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’), dated February 28,
2007.
Normal Value
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a factors-ofproduction methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME
and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
the FOP because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of non-market economies renders price
comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the
Department’s normal methodologies.
2. Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on
factors of production reported by
respondents for the POR, except as
noted above. To calculate NV, we
multiplied the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available
Bangladeshi surrogate values. In
selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added
to Bangladeshi import surrogate values
a surrogate freight cost using the shorter
of the reported distance from the
domestic supplier to the factory of
production or the distance from the
nearest seaport to the factory of
production where appropriate. This
adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–
1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not
use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we
calculated freight based on the reported
distance from the supplier to the
factory.
With regard to surrogate values and
the market-economy input values, we
have disregarded prices that we have
reason to believe or suspect may be
subsidized. We have reason to believe or
suspect that prices of inputs from
Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and
India may have been subsidized. We
have found in other proceedings that
these countries maintain broadly
available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable
to infer that all exports to all markets
from these countries may be subsidized.
See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Negative Final Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People’s Republic of
China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004)
(‘‘CTVs from the PRC’’) at
accompanying issues and decision
memorandum at Comment 7; see also
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate
from Romania: Notice of Final Results
and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005)
and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 4. The
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
legislative history provides that in
making its determination as to whether
input values may be subsidized, the
Department is not required to conduct a
formal investigation, rather, Congress
directed the Department to base its
decision on information that is available
to it at the time it makes its
determination. See H.R. Rep. 100–576 at
590 (1988).
Therefore, based on the information
currently available, we have not used
prices from these countries either in
calculating the Bangladeshi importbased surrogate values or in calculating
market-economy input values. In
instances where a market-economy
input was obtained solely from
suppliers located in these countries, we
used Bangladeshi import-based
surrogate values to value the input.
Except as discussed below, the
Department used United Nations
ComTrade Statistics (‘‘UN ComTrade’’),
provided by the United Nations
Department of Economic and Social
Affairs’ Statistics Division, as its
primary source of Bangladeshi surrogate
value data.18 The data represents
cumulative values for the calendar year
2004, for inputs classified by the
Harmonized Commodity Description
and Coding System (‘‘HS’’) number. For
each input value, we used the average
value per unit for that input imported
into Bangladesh from all countries that
the Department has not previously
determined to be non-market economy
(‘‘NME’’) countries. Import statistics
from countries that the Department has
determined to be countries which
subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia,
Korea, Thailand, and India) and imports
from unspecified countries also were
excluded in the calculation of the
average value. See CTVs from the PRC,
69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004).
It is the Department’s practice to
calculate price index adjustors to inflate
or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate
values that are not contemporaneous
with the POR using the wholesale price
index for the subject country. See Notice
of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement
of Final Determination: Hand Trucks
and Certain Parts Thereof from the
People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 29509
(May 24, 2004). However, in this case,
a wholesale price index was not
available for Bangladesh. Therefore,
where publicly available information
contemporaneous with the POI with
which to value factors could not be
obtained, surrogate values were adjusted
using the Consumer Price Index (‘‘CPI’’)
18 This can be accessed online at: https://
unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/.
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
rate for Bangladesh, or the Wholesale
Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) for India or
Indonesia (for certain surrogate values
where Bangladeshi data could not be
obtained), as published in the
International Financial Statistics
(‘‘IFS’’) of the International Monetary
Fund (‘‘IMF’’).
Certain surrogate values were
calculated using data from the 2004
Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh
(‘‘Bangladesh Government Statistics’’),
published by the Bangladesh Bureau of
Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of
Planning. The information represents
cumulative values for the period of
2004. Certain other Bangladeshi sources
were used as well. See Factor Valuation
Memo. The unit values were initially
calculated in takas/unit.
Bangladeshi and other surrogate
values denominated in foreign
currencies were converted to USD using
the applicable average exchange rate
based on exchange rate data from the
Department’s Web site.
Shrimp Value
The value of the main input, head-on,
shell-on (‘‘HOSO’’) shrimp, is an
important factor of production in our
dumping calculation as it accounts for
a significant percentage of normal value.
As a general matter, the Department
prefers to use publicly available data to
value surrogate values from the
surrogate country to determine factor
prices that, among other things
represent a broad market average and
are contemporaneous with the POR. The
Respondents and the Petitioner have
placed numerous Bangladeshi shrimp
values on the record. In this case, the
Department has determined that data
contained in a study of the Bangladeshi
shrimp industry published by the
Network of Aquaculture Centres in
Asia-Pacific (‘‘NACA’’), an
intergovernmental organization
affiliated with the UN’s Food and
Agriculture Organization, is a suitable
surrogate value for shrimp from the
surrogate country, namely, Bangladesh.
The Department’s practice when
selecting the ‘‘best available
information’’ for valuing FOPs, in
accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the
Act, is to select, to the extent
practicable, surrogate values which are:
publicly available, product-specific,
representative of a broad market
average, tax-exclusive and
contemporaneous with the POR. See
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas
from the People’s Republic of China, 71
FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 2. The data
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
contained in the NACA study appear to
satisfy these requirements.
To value the by-products, the
Department used a surrogate value for
shrimp by-products based on a purchase
price quote for wet shrimp shells from
an Indonesian buyer of crustacean
shells. Although we recognize this
surrogate value is not from Bangladesh,
the primary surrogate, this information
represents the best information on the
record and is being used for these
preliminary results. This information is
specific to the by-product in question,
shrimp shells, whereas the Bangladeshi
data on the record represent a basket
category. See Factor Valuation Memo, at
Exhibit 11.
To value packing materials, we used
UN ComTrade data as the primary
source of Bangladeshi surrogate value
data.
To value factory overhead (‘‘FOH’’),
Selling, General & Administrative
(‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, and profit, we used
the simple average of the 2004–2005
and 2005–2006 financial statement of
Apex Foods Limited (‘‘Apex’’), the 2005
financial statement of Bionic Seafood
Exports Limited, and the 2004–2005
financial statement of Gemini Seafood
Limited, all of which are Bangladeshi
shrimp processors. See Factor Valuation
Memo, at Exhibit 12.
Preliminary Results of the Reviews
The Department has determined that
the following preliminary dumping
margins exist for the period July 16,
2004, through January 31, 2006:
CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER
SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM
Manufacturer/Exporter
Produced and Exported by Grobest.
Fish One ...................
Nha Trang Fisco .......
Bac Lieu Fisheries ....
Cam Ranh Seafoods
Incomfish ...................
Vietnam-Wide Rate 19
Weighted-average
margin (percent)
1.08.
0.01 (de minimis).
4.57.
4.57.
4.57.
4.57.
25.76.
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
Interested parties may submit case
briefs and/or written comments no later
19 The Vietnam-Wide entity includes Aquatic
Products Trading Company, Seaprodex Hanoi,
Kisimex, Nha Trang Company Limited, Nha Trang
Fisheries Co. Ltd., Seaprodex, Sea Products Imports
& Exports, Song Huong ASC Import-Export
Company Ltd., Song Huong ASC Joint Stock
Company, Viet Nhan Company, and V N Seafoods.
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10697
than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results
of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments, may be filed
no later than 37 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results
of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Any interested party may request a
hearing within 30 days of publication of
these preliminary results. See 19 CFR
351.310(c). Requests should contain the
following information: (1) The party’s
name, address, and telephone number;
(2) the number of participants; and (3)
a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral
presentations will be limited to issues
raised in the briefs. If we receive a
request for a hearing, we plan to hold
the hearing seven days after the
deadline for submission of the rebuttal
briefs at the U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230.
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review and
new shipper reviews, which will
include the results of its analysis of
issues raised in any such comments,
within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries. The Department
intends to issue assessment instructions
to CBP 15 days after the date of
publication of the final results of
review. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review,
the Department shall determine, and
CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on
all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19
CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate
importer-specific (or customer) ad
valorem duty assessment rates based on
the ratio of the total amount of the
dumping margins calculated for the
examined sales to the total entered
value of those same sales. We will
instruct CBP to assess antidumping
duties on all appropriate entries covered
by this review if any importer-specific
assessment rate calculated in the final
results of this review is above de
minimis.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of these
new shipper reviews for all shipments
of subject merchandise from Grobest
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
10698
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices
publication date, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject
merchandise produced and exported by
Grobest, the cash-deposit rate will be
that established in these final results of
reviews and (2) for subject merchandise
exported by Grobest, but manufactured
by any other party, the cash deposit rate
will be Vietnam-wide rate (i.e., 25.76
percent).
Further, the following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of the
administrative review for shipments of
the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date of the final results, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
subject merchandise exported by Fish
One, the cash-deposit rate will be that
established in these final results of
review; (2) for previously reviewed or
investigated companies not listed above
that have separate rates, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the
company-specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all other
Vietnam exporters of subject
merchandise, which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash-deposit rate will be Vietnamwide rate of 25.76 percent; (4) for all
non-Vietnam exporters of subject
merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will
be the rate applicable to the Vietnam
exporter that supplied that exporter.
These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until
publication of the final results of the
next administrative review.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Notification to Importers
This notice also 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.
This administrative review, the new
shipper reviews and this notice are in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1),
751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act, and
19 CFR 351.213(g), 351.214(h) and
352.221(b)(4).
Dated: February 28, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–4281 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
21:24 Mar 08, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–331–802
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from Ecuador: Preliminary Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(the Department) is conducting an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador
with respect to 23 companies.1 The
respondents which the Department
selected for individual review are
OceanInvest, S.A. (OceanInvest) and
Promarisco, S.A. (Promarisco). The
respondents which were not selected for
individual review are listed in the
‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section
of this notice. This is the first
administrative review of this order. The
period of review (POR) covers August 4,
2004, through January 31, 2006.
We preliminarily determine that sales
made by OceanInvest and Promarisco
have been made below normal value
(NV). In addition, based on the
preliminary results for the respondents
selected for individual review, we have
preliminarily determined a weighted–
average margin for those companies that
were not selected for individual review
but were responsive to the Department’s
requests for information. For those
companies which were not responsive
to the Department’s requests for
information, we have preliminarily
assigned to them a margin based on
adverse facts available (AFA).
If the 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 the preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import
Administration–Room B099,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–4136 or (202) 482–3773,
respectively.
AGENCY:
1 This figure does not include the company for
which the Department is rescinding the
administrative review. See ‘‘Partial Rescission of
Review’’ section for further discussion.
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In February 2005, the Department
published in the Federal Register an
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador.
See Notice of Amended Final
Determination and Antidumping Duty
Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from Ecuador, 70 FR 5156
(February 1, 2005) (Shrimp Order). On
February 1, 2006, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of opportunity to request an
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order of certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador
for the period August 4, 2004, through
January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity
to Request Administrative Review, 71
FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On
February 28, 2006, the petitioner2
submitted a letter timely requesting that
the Department conduct an
administrative review of the sales of
certain frozen warmwater shrimp made
by numerous companies during the
POR, pursuant to section 751(a) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act),
and in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b)(1). Also, on February 28,
2006, the Department received timely
requests under 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) to
conduct an administrative review of the
sales of certain frozen warmwater
shrimp from the following producers/
exporters of subject merchandise:
Empacadora del Pacifico S.A.,
Empacadora Dufer Cia. Ltda.,
Exporklore, S.A., Promarisco, and
Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A.
On April 7, 2006, the Department
published a notice of initiation of
administrative review for 71 companies
and requested that each provide data on
the quantity and value of its exports of
subject merchandise to the United
States during the POR for mandatory
respondent selection purposes. These
companies are listed in the
Department’s notice of initiation. See
Notice of Initiation of Administrative
Reviews of the Antidumping Duty
Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and
Thailand, 71 FR 17819 (April 7, 2006)
(Notice of Initiation).
During the period April 27, 2006,
through June 13, 2006, we received
responses to the Department’s quantity
and value questionnaire from 59
companies. A number of these
companies reported that their names
2 The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade
Action Committee.
E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM
09MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10689-10698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4281]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-552-802]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and New
Shipper Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting
an administrative review and a new shipper review of the antidumping
duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam''), both covering the period of review
(``POR'') of July 16, 2004, through January 1, 2006. As discussed
below, we preliminarily determine that certain respondents in these
reviews (covering one new shipper review and sixteen companies subject
to the administrative review) \1\ have not made sales in the United
States at prices below normal value. If these preliminary results are
adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess antidumping duties on entries
of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific
assessment rates are above de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Further, we preliminarily determine to use total adverse
facts available to determine the rate for eleven of the sixteen
administrative review companies and the Vietnam-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Bankhead (respondent Grobest),
and Matthew Renkey (respondent Fish One), 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) 482-9068 and (202) 482-2312,
respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
General Background
On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal
Register the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from
Vietnam. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 (February 1,
2005) (``VN Shrimp Order''). On January 31, 2006, we received a request
for a new shipper review from Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co.,
Ltd. (``Grobest''). On February 1, 2006, the Department published a
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam for the
period July 16, 2004, through January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation;
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 (February 1,
2006).
On February 28, 2006, we received requests to conduct
administrative reviews of 83 companies from the Petitioner \2\ in
addition to requests by certain Vietnamese companies. See Notice of
Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 17813 (April 7, 2006)
(``Administrative Review Initiation''). On March 17, 2006, the
Department also initiated a new shipper review with respect to
Grobest.\3\ On March 31, 2006, the Department initiated an
administrative review of eighty-four \4\ producers/exporters of subject
merchandise from Vietnam. See Administrative Review Initiation. On May
31, 2006, the Department aligned Grobest's new shipper review with that
of Fish One based on a request from Grobest.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is the Petitioner.
\3\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of New Shipper Review, 71 FR 14834
(March 24, 2006) (``New Shipper Initiation'').
\4\ AAAS Logistics, Agrimex, Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.*,
American Container Line, Angiang Agricultural Technology Service
Company, An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company
(Agifish), Aquatic Products Trading Company*, Bac Lieu Fisheries
Company Limited*, Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports, Bentre
Aquaproduct Imports & Exports, Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export
Company (Cadovimex)*, Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export
Corporation (Camimex)*, Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise
Company (Camranh Seafoods)*, Cantho Animal Fisheries Product
Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex)*, Can Tho Agricultural
Products, Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export
Company (Cataco)*, Can Tho Seafood Exports, Cautre Enterprises,
Coastal Fishery Development, Coastal Fisheries Development
Corporation (Cofidec)*, C P Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd.*, C P
Livestock, Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro)*, Danang
Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (Seaprodex Danang)*, Dong Phuc
Huynh Frozen Seafoods Fty, General Imports & Exports, Grobest & I
Mei Industry Vietnam, Hacota Hai Viet, Hai Thuan Export Seaproducts
Processing Co. Ltd., Hanoi Sea Products Import Export Corporation*,
Hoa Nam Marine Agricultural, Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct Fty,
Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (Incomfish)*, Kien Giang
Sea Products Import--Export Company (Kisimex)*, Kim Anh Co. Ltd.,
Khanh Loi Trading, Lamson Import-Export Foodstuffs Corporation, Minh
Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, Minh Hai
Export Frozen Seafoods Processing Joint Stock Company (Minh Hai
Jostoco)*, Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods Processing Company
(Seaprodex Minh Hai)*, Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company
(Seaprimiex Co)*, Minh Phat Seafood*, Minh Phu Seafood Corporation*,
Minh Qui Seafood*, Ngoc Sinh Seafoods*, Nha Trang Company Limited,
Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (Nhtrang Fisco)*, Nha Trang
Fisheries Co. Ltd., Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (Nhatrang
Seafoods)*, Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd.*, Phu Cuong Seafood
Processing and Import Export Company Ltd.*, Phuong Nam Co. Ltd.*,
Phuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd., Saigon Orchide, Sao Ta Foods Joint
Stock Compay (Fimex VN)*, Seafood Processing Imports Exports
Vietnam, Seaprodex, Sea Product, Sea Products Imports & Exports,
Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd.*, Song Huong ASC Joint
Stock Company, Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export
Company (Stampimex)*, Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import
Export Company (Stampimex)*, Sonacos, Special Aquatic Products Joing
Stock Company (Seaspimex), Tacvan Frozen Seafoods Processing Export
Company, Thami Shipping & Airfreight, Thanh Long, Thanh Long, Thien
Ma Seafood, Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company, Thuan
Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation*, Tourism Material and
Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City Branch), Truc An
Company, UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company*, Viet Foods Co.
Ltd.*, Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One)*, Vietnam
Northern Viking Technologie Co. Ltd., Viet Nhan Company*, Vilfood
Co, Vinh Loi Import Export Company (Vimexco)*, Vita, V N Seafoods.
(* these companies received a separate rate in the prior segment
(the less-than-fair value investigation) of this proceeding.
\5\ See Letter from Grobest Re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from Vietnam: Grobest's Request for Alignment of New Shipper and
Administrative Reviews, dated May 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 27, 2006, in accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of the
Department's regulations, we rescinded the administrative review with
respect to sixty-eight companies. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of the First
Administrative Review, 71 FR 42628 (July 27, 2006) (``Rescission
Notice''). Therefore, these
[[Page 10690]]
reviews cover 17 \6\ producers/exporters of the subject merchandise and
the Vietnam-wide entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This includes sixteen companies subject to the
administrative review and one new shipper; the administrative review
for Grobest was rescinded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 21, 2006, the Department extended the preliminary results
for the instant reviews until February 28, 2007. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, the People's Republic of China, and Thailand: Notice of
Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the First
Administrative Reviews and New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 50387 (August 25,
2006).
On January 23, 2007, we published a correction to the scope of the
order in which we clarified that the scope does not cover warmwater
shrimp in non-frozen form. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders, 72 FR 2857 (Jan. 23,
2007).
Scope of the Order
The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp
and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised
(produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled,
tail-on or tail-off,\7\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which includes
the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the
scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed
from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in
any count size.
The products described above may be processed from any species of
warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally
classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some
examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but
are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn
(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon),
redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp
(Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern
rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp
(Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white
shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus
indicus).
Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or
sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food
preparations, which are not ``prepared meals,'' that contain more than
20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope
of this order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS
subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified
in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp,
in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-
on or peeled (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4)
shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5)
dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS
subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted shrimp; and (8) certain
battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is
produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to
which a ``dusting'' layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent
purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp
flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-
shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10
percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to
being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately
after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-
based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of
dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or
milk, and par-fried.
The products covered by this order are currently classified under
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06,
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18,
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40,
1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided
for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive,
but rather the written description of the scope of this order is
dispositive.
Respondent Selection
On April 3, 2006, the Department sent letters to the Vietnam
Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (``VASEP'') and the
Ministry of Fisheries in Vietnam requesting assistance with
distributing the Department's questionnaire. On April 25, 2006, the
Department sent a letter to all interested parties clarifying an aspect
of the separate rates application. Between April 27 and May 19, 2006,
the Department received Quantity and Value questionnaire (``Q&V'')
responses and separate rate certifications from COFIDEC, Seaprodex
Hanoi, CATACO, FAQUIMEX, HAVICO, Kim Anh, Fish One, Phuong Nam Co.,
Ltd. and subsidiary Western Seafood Processing and Exporting Factory,
Fimex, Grobest, CAM RANH, Bac Lieu, Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading
Corporation, Ngoc Sinh, STAPIMEX, UTXI, Amanda, Minh Phu, Nha Trang
Fisco, Viet Foods, VIMEXCO, Seaprimexco, Kisimex, Cafatex, Seaprodex
Minh Hai, CP Vietnam, Incomfish, Minh Hai Jostco, Phu Cuong, Camimex,
Cuu Long Sea Pro, Nha Trang Seafoods, Seaprodex Danang, and CADOVIMEX.
On May 22, 2006, the Department resent its Q&V questionnaire and
separate rate application via e-mail and overnight express delivery to
all companies that did not respond to the Department's original Q&V
questionnaire and separate rate application. See Memorandum to the
file, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew
Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Issuance of the Second Round of
Quantity and Value Questionnaires and Separate Rate Applications/
Certifications. On May 25, 2006, the Department corrected a mistake to
its May 22, 2006, Q&V follow-up letters addressed to VASEP and the
Ministry of Fisheries. See Memorandum to the file, through Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior
Analyst, Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Quantity and Value Response for Tho
Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company. On May 26, 2006, the
Department reissued its Q&V questionnaire and separate rate application
to two additional companies.
Between June 2 and July 11, 2006, the Petitioner withdrew its
request for antidumping administrative reviews for certain companies
and certain companies also withdrew their requests for an
administrative review. See Rescission Notice. On June 6, 2006, the
Petitioner filed a letter requesting that the Department select
mandatory respondents through a sampling methodology. On June 7, 2006,
Pataya
[[Page 10691]]
Food Industries (Vietnam) Limited filed a letter stating that it had no
shipments during the POR. On June 14, 2006, the Department placed on
the record a Q&V response from Vilfood Co. Ltd. and Khanh Loi
Production & Trading Co., Ltd. See Memorandum to the file, through Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew Renkey, Senior
Analyst, Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: No Shipment Responses from Vilfood Co.
Ltd. and Khanh Loi Production & Trading Co., Ltd. On June 15, 2006, the
Department met with the Petitioner to discuss the shrimp administrative
reviews. See Memorandum to the file, from Chris Riker, Program Manager,
Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador,
India, Thailand, the People's Republic of China and the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Ex Parte Meeting.
On June 16, 2006, the Department issued its respondent selection
memorandum stating that we selected Amanda, Fimex, and Phuong Nam as
the three mandatory respondents since they were the three largest
exporters, by volume, of the remaining companies. See Memorandum to
Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, re:
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Respondents
(``Respondent Selection Memo''). On July 11, 2006, the Department
selected three new mandatory respondents: Fish One, Seaprodex Hanoi,
and Kisimex (the three largest remaining exporters, by volume) based on
the withdrawals of requests for review from the three previously
selected mandatory respondents. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle,
Director, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9,
from Cindy Lai Robinson, Senior Analyst re: Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Additional Mandatory
Respondents (``Second Respondent Selection Memo'').
Questionnaires
The following sixteen companies remain in the administrative
review: Aquatic Products Trading Company, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Camranh
Seafoods, Seaprodex Hanoi, Incomfish, Kisimex, Nha Trang Company
Limited, Nhatrang Fisco, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd., Seaprodex, Sea
Products Imports & Exports, Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd.,
Song Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Vietnam Fish One, Viet Nhan
Company, and V N Seafoods.
On March 20, 2006, the Department issued Grobest the non-market
economy questionnaire. On July 12, 2006, the Department issued its non-
market economy questionnaire to the three new mandatory respondents
Fish One, Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Prior to the withdrawal of their requests for review, on
June 20, 2006, the Department issued its non-market economy
questionnaire to the three mandatory respondents: Amanda, Fimex, and
Phuong Nam, in the instant administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grobest responded to the Department's non-market economy
questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between April
2006 and November 2006. Fish One responded to the Department's non-
market economy questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires
between August 2006 and November 2006. Between August and November
2006, the Petitioner submitted comments regarding Fish One's
questionnaire responses.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values
On June 20, 2006, the Department sent interested parties a letter
requesting comments on surrogate country and information pertaining to
valuing factors of production. Grobest, Fish One, and the Petitioner
submitted surrogate country comments and surrogate value data between
November 16, 2006, and February 12, 2007.
Use of Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``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 subsection 782(d) of the Act, use
facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination.
Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time} for
information, notifies {the Department{time} that such party is unable
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner,
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on
that party.
Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent
responses, as appropriate.
Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section
782(d) if: (1) The information is submitted by the established
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can
be used without undue difficulties.
Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that 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 from the administering authority or the Commission, the
administering authority or the Commission * * *, in reaching the
applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is
adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the
facts otherwise available.'' See also Statement of Administrative
Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R.
Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994).
1. Fish One Unreported Factors of Production (``FOPs'')
For these preliminary results, in accordance with sections
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we have determined that the use of facts
available is appropriate for Fish One's unreported consumption of salt2
\9\ and marinade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Fish One reported using salt in its production of shrimp,
however, it also uses salt in its production of ice, which we are
referring to as ``salt2.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish One did not report salt2 or marinade consumption in its three
[[Page 10692]]
submissions of FOP data dated August 25, 2006, October 26, 2006, and
November 21, 2006. At verification, we discovered that Fish One used
salt2 and marinade during the production of subject merchandise. See
Fish One Verification Report, at 10; see also Memorandum to the File,
through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Matthew
Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Viet Hai Seafoods
Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One), dated February 28, 2007 at 3. Because
Fish One withheld this data and failed to report its actual salt2 and
marinade consumption to the Department, despite multiple opportunities
to provide complete FOP data,\10\ we are applying facts available for
Fish One's salt2 and marinade consumption pursuant to section
776(a)(2)(A) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ August 25, 2006, October 25, 2006, and November 21, 2006
responses to the Department's original and supplemental Section C
and D questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 776(b) of the Act states that 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 from the
administering authority or the Commission, the administering authority
or the Commission * * *, in reaching the applicable determination under
this title, may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of
that party in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.'' See
also SAA accompanying the URAA at 870. An adverse inference may include
reliance on information derived from the Petition, the final
determination in the investigation, any previous review, or any other
information placed on the record. See section 776(b) of the Act.
In this instance, Fish One failed to act to the best of its ability
to comply with the Department's repeated requests for information
regarding all of its FOP used during the POR, i.e. salt2 and marinade.
Only at verification did it become clear that these two previously
unreported factors of production existed. As noted above, Fish One had
several opportunities to provide the information regarding these two
FOPs and was the sole entity with both possession and control of this
information; however, Fish One failed to report the data for these two
FOPs. Throughout the proceeding, Fish One did not indicate that it was
unable to submit complete FOP information in the requested form and
manner, nor did Fish One provide a full explanation or suggest an
alternative form in which to submit the information, in accordance with
section 782(c)(1) of the Act. Therefore, we find that Fish One failed
to cooperate to the best of its ability with respect to these FOPs and
we are applying AFA for these two factors used by Fish One in these
preliminary results, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act. As partial
AFA for Fish One's salt2 and marinade FOPs, we are using the highest
single monthly usage rate for these inputs and applying this monthly
usage ratio to all months during the POR.
2. Vietnam-Wide Entity and Non-Responsive Companies
As mentioned in the ``General Background'' section above, based on
withdrawals and subsequent rescissions, the administrative review
covers sixteen companies. Of those sixteen companies, only one
mandatory respondent (Fish One) and four separate rate companies (Bac
Lieu Fisheries, Camranh Seafoods, Incomfish, and Nhatrang Fisco) chose
to participate. The remaining eleven companies did not provide
responses to the Department's requests for information. On July 12,
2006, the Department issued the non-market economy questionnaire to
mandatory respondents, Kisimex and Seaprodex Hanoi. Neither respondent
provided a response to Section A of the Department's antidumping
questionnaire by the deadline of August 2, 2006. The Department sent
letters to both companies on August 4, 2006, stating that the final
opportunity to submit a response to the Department's questionnaire
would be August 11, 2006, but neither company responded. Additionally,
the nine remaining companies \11\ did not respond at any point to the
Department's Q&V and separate rate questionnaires, despite the fact
that these companies, as outlined above, were given two opportunities
to do so. Furthermore, at no point in the administrative review did any
of these companies submit comments regarding their status in this
proceeding. As such, we find it appropriate to apply facts available to
these eleven companies in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B)
of the Act. Moreover, we find that because these eleven companies did
not respond to the Department's questionnaires, they did not cooperate
to the best of their ability and therefore, adverse facts available is
appropriate. As these eleven companies did not provide the information
necessary to conduct a separate rate analysis, we also consider these
companies as part of the Vietnam-wide entity. Therefore, we are
applying an adverse inference to the Vietnam-wide entity (including the
eleven non-responsive companies) in accordance with section 776(b) of
the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Aquatic Products Trading Company, Nha Trang Company
Limited, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd., Seaprodex, Sea Products
Imports & Exports, Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd., Song
Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Viet Nhan Company, and V N Seafoods.
\12\ See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished,
With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and Final
Rescission and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Reviews, 71 FR 54269 (September 14, 2006) (``HFHTs Final 2006'') and
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two
Manufacturers/Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the
People's Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As AFA, we are applying the highest rate from any segment of this
proceeding which in this case is the rate assigned to the Vietnam-wide
entity in the LTFV investigation. Section 776(c) of the Act requires
that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary
information used as facts available. Secondary information is defined
as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(d).
The SAA further provides that the term ``corroborate'' means that
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable,
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. The AFA
rate we are applying for the current review of frozen shrimp was
corroborated in the investigation. See VN Shrimp Order, 70 FR 5152
(February 1, 2005). No information has been presented in the current
review that calls into question the reliability of the information used
for this AFA rate. Thus, the Department finds that the information 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
[[Page 10693]]
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 with respect to the rate being used here.
Moreover, the rate selected (i.e., 25.76 percent) is the rate currently
applicable to the Vietnam-wide entity. The Department assumes that if
an uncooperative respondent could have demonstrated a lower rate, it
would have cooperated. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899
F2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United
States, 24 CIT 841 (2000) (respondents should not benefit from failure
to cooperate). As there is no information on the record of this review
that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate to use as AFA in
the current review, we determine that this rate has relevance.
As this rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it
has probative value, and is thus in accordance with section 776(c)'s
requirement that secondary information be corroborated to the extent
practicable (i.e., that it has probative value).
Verification
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we conducted verifications of
the sales and factors of production (``FOP'') for Grobest \13\ and Fish
One.\14\ The Petitioner submitted pre-verification comments for Fish
One on November 20, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The verification of Grobest's sales and FOPs and that of
its affiliated United States importer Ocean Duke took place from
November 29, 2006, through December 8, 2006. See Memorandum to the
file through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, Import
Administration, from Nicole Bankhead, Analyst, Office 9:
Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Grobest & I-Mei
Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (``Grobest'') and its affiliate Ocean
Duke in the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
\14\ The verification of Fish One's sales and FOPs took place
from December 11, 2006, through December 15, 2006. See Memorandum to
the file through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, Import
Administration, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9:
Verification of the Sales and Factors Response of Vietnam Fish One
Co., Ltd. (``Fish One'') in the Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Shipper Reviews Bona Fide Analysis
Consistent with the Department's practice, we investigated the bona
fide nature of the sale made by Grobest for the new shipper review. We
preliminarily find that the new shipper sale made by Grobest is a bona
fide transaction. Based on our investigation into the bona fide nature
of the sale, the questionnaire responses submitted by Grobest, and our
verification thereof, as well the company's eligibility for a separate
rate (see Separate Rates section below) and the Department's
preliminary determination that Grobest was not affiliated with any
exporter or producer that had previously shipped subject merchandise to
the United States, we preliminarily determine that Grobest has met the
requirements to qualify as a new shipper during the POR. Therefore, for
purposes of these preliminary results of review, we are treating
Grobest's respective sale of subject merchandise to the United States
as an appropriate transaction for this new shipper review.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Analyst, Office
9, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to James C.
Doyle, Director, Office 9: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in the
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp: Grobest, dated February 28, 2007 (``Grobest Prelim Bona Fide
Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving Vietnam,
Vietnam has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority. See Brake Rotors From the
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the
2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005
New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the
parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly,
we calculated normal value (``NV'') in accordance with section 773(c)
of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
Separate Rates Determination
A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there
is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within Vietnam are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign
all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a
single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence
of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto),
with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently
independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the
Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country 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), as amplified by the Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of
China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon Carbide'').
A. Absence of De Jure Control
The Department considers the following de jure criteria in
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate
rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an
individual exporter's business and export licenses; and (2) any
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies.
In the LTFV investigation for this case, the Department granted
separate rates to Fish One, the only mandatory respondent in the
instant review, and to the four participating separate rate
respondents, Nha Trang Fisco, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh Seafoods,
and Incomfish. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004) and accompanying
Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, NME
Unit, Office IX, THROUGH: Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Enforcement, NME Unit, Office IX , FROM: Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst,
re: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen and Canned
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Determination Separate Rates Memorandum for Section A Respondents; see
also VN Shrimp Order, 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005) and accompanying
MEMORANDUM TO: James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement,
Office 9, THROUGH: Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD
Enforcement, Office 9, FROM: Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, and Paul
Walker, Case Analyst, RE:
[[Page 10694]]
Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Analysis of Ministerial Error
Allegations at Comments 7,8,9,10, and 11. However, it is the
Department's policy to evaluate separate rates questionnaire responses
each time a respondent makes a separate rates claim, regardless of
whether the respondent received a separate rate in the past. See
Manganese Metal From the People's Republic of China, Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR
12440 (March 13, 1998).
In this review, only Fish One, Grobest, and the four participating
separate rate companies submitted complete responses to the separate
rates section of the Department's NME questionnaire. The evidence
submitted by these companies includes government laws and regulations
on corporate ownership, business licenses, and narrative information
regarding the companies' operations and selection of management. The
evidence provided by these companies supports a finding of a de jure
absence of governmental control over their export activities. We have
no information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider
this determination. Thus, we believe that the evidence on the record
supports a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure government
control based on: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated
with the exporter's business license; and (2) the legal authority on
the record decentralizing control over the respondents.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ The preliminary finding applies to (1) the one mandatory
participating respondent of this administrative review: Fish One;
(2) the new shipper company under review; Grobest; and (3) the non-
selected respondents of this administrative review seeking a
separate rate: Nha Trang Fisco, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh
Seafoods, and Incomfish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Absence of De Facto Control
The absence of de facto governmental control over exports is based
on whether the Respondent: (1) Sets its own export prices independent
of the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from
its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the
disposition of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to
negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy
from the government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon
Carbide, 59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; see also 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).
In their questionnaire responses, Fish One and the separate rate
companies submitted evidence indicating an absence of de facto
governmental control over their export activities. Specifically, this
evidence indicates that: (1) Each company sets its own export prices
independent of the government and without the approval of a government
authority; (2) each company retains the proceeds from its sales and
makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or
financing of losses; (3) each company has a general manager, branch
manager or division manager with the authority to negotiate and bind
the company in an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the
board of directors or company employees, and the general manager
appoints the deputy managers and the manager of each department; and
(5) there is no restriction on any of the companies use of export
revenues. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Fish One
and the separate rate companies have established prima facie that they
qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by Silicon
Carbide and Sparklers. Additionally, Grobest reported that it is wholly
owned by foreign entities. Therefore, an additional separate-rates
analysis is not necessary to determine whether Grobest's export
activities are independent from government control. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate
from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105 (December 20,
1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned, thus, qualified
for a separate rate).
Separate Rate Calculation
Based on timely requests from individual exporters and petitioners,
the Department originally initiated this review with respect to 84
companies. During the course of the review, numerous requests for
review were withdrawn; however, the Department employed a limited
examination methodology, as it did not have the resources to examine
all companies for which a review request was made. As stated
previously, the Department selected three exporters, Fish One,
Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex as mandatory respondents in this review.
Four additional companies (Nha Trang Fisco, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam
Ranh Seafoods and Incomfish) submitted timely information as requested
by the Department and remain subject to review as cooperative separate
rate respondents.
Fish One participated fully in this review and is receiving a
preliminary antidumping duty rate of zero. As noted above, however, the
remaining two mandatory respondents, Seaprodex Hanoi and Kisimex, did
not respond to our questionnaires. As a result, these two entities are
not entitled to a separate rate in this review and thus are considered
to be part of the Vietnam-wide entity. As part of the Vietnam-wide
entity, these two companies are receiving a preliminary antidumping
duty rate of 25.76 percent.
The Department must also assign a rate to the remaining four
cooperative separate rate respondents not selected for individual
examination. We note that the statute and the Department's regulations
do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for examination where the Department
limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section
777(A)(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in this regard, in
cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the
largest volumes of trade, has been to weight-average the rates for the
selected companies excluding zero and de minimis rates and rates based
entirely on adverse facts available. In the instant review, however,
the rates for the mandatory respondents include only a single zero rate
and a rate for the Vietnam-wide entity based on total AFA.
While the statute does not specifically address this particular set
of circumstances, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act does specify the
methodology to be followed when a similar fact pattern arises in the
context of the all-others rate established in an investigation. While
not entirely analogous to the determination of a rate to be applied to
responsive separate rate respondents in the context of a NME review, we
find it to be instructive in these circumstances.
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act states that in situations where the
estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all
exporters and producers individually investigated are zero or de
minimis, or are determined entirely under section 776 (facts available
section), ``the administering authority may use any reasonable method
to establish the estimated all-others rate for exporters and producers
not individually investigated, including averaging the weighted-average
dumping margins determined for the exporters and producers individually
investigated.''
The Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') states that in
using any reasonable method to calculate the all-others rate, ``the
expected method in
[[Page 10695]]
such cases will be to weight-average the zero and de minimis margins
and margins determined pursuant to the facts available, provided that
volume data is available.'' See SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.Doc. 316, Vol 1., 103rd Cong (1994)(SAA) at 203.
However, the SAA also provides that: [I]f this method is not feasible,
or if it results in an average that would not be reasonably reflective
of potential dumping margins for non-investigated exporters or
producers, Commerce may use other reasonable means.'' Id.
In this case, because of the nature of the shrimp industry, the
Department preliminarily concludes that it cannot accurately determine
a margin based on information provided by the separate rate entities,
furthermore, we preliminarily find that we cannot employ such
alternative methods as weight-averaging AFA, de minimis, and zero rates
or partial use of the information on the record. Specifically, while
the separate rates entities have given us total volume and value
information with respect to subject merchandise, we note that shrimp
prices vary dramatically, principally due to count-size. Thus, margins
calculated on the basis of average prices without regard to count size
and other factors do not reflect a meaningful, accurate comparison.
Because the Department does not have comparable information with
respect to the count sizes sold by the separate entities, we find we
must look to other reasonable means to determine an appropriate margin
for the separate rate entities subject to this review.
The Department has preliminarily determined to apply the margin
calculated for cooperative separate rate respondents in the immediately
preceding segment of this proceeding, i.e., the margin of 4.57 percent
assigned to such companies in the LTFV investigation. We believe this
methodology constitutes a reasonable method by which to calculate such
rate. The rate of 4.57 percent calculated in the LTFV was based on the
Department's thorough examination of several cooperative companies
accounting for a majority of exports during the period of
investigation. We believe, therefore, that this rate is reflective of
the range of commercial behavior demonstrated by exporters of the
subject merchandise during a very recent period in time. Therefore, we
find it a reasonable means by which to determine a rate for non-
examined cooperative separate entities and have employed this
methodology for purposes of these preliminary results.
Surrogate Country
When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs''),
valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4)
of the Act, in valuing the factors of production, the Department shall
utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or
more market economy countries that are: (1) At a level of economic
development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant
producers of comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate
factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below
and in Memorandum to the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager,
Office 9 from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping
Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the
Preliminary Results, February 28, 2007 (``Factor Valuation Memo'').
As discussed in the ``Separate Rates'' section, the Department
considers Vietnam to be an NME country. The Department has treated
Vietnam as an NME country in all previous antidumping proceedings. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until
revoked by the administering authority. None of the parties to this
proceeding contested such treatment. Accordingly, we treated Vietnam as
an NME country for purposes of this review and calculated NV, pursuant
to section 773(c) of the Act, by valuing the FOPs in a surrogate
country.
The Department determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri
Lanka, and Indonesia are countries comparable to Vietnam in terms of
economic development.\17\ Moreover, it is the Department's practice to
select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and
reliability of data from the countries. See Department Policy Bulletin
No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process,
(March 1, 2004) (``Policy Bulletin''). In this case, we have found that
Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India are all significant producers of
comparable merchandise. We find Bangladesh to be a reliable source for
surrogate values because Bangladesh is at a similar level of economic
development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer
of comparable merchandise, and has publicly available and reliable
data. See Memorandum to the File, through James C. Doyle, Office
Director, Office 9, Import Administration, from Nicole Bankhead, Senior
Case Analyst, Subject: First Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review and
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of a Surrogate Country,
(February 28, 2007) (``Surrogate Country Memo''). Furthermore, we note
that Bangladesh has been the primary surrogate country in past segments
and both the Petitioner and Respondents submitted surrogate values
based on Bangladeshi data that are contemporaneous to the POR, which
gives further credence to the use of Bangladesh as a surrogate country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy,
to Jim Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: New
Shipper Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Request for
a List of Surrogate Countries, dated June 20, 2006, at Attachment I;
Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Jim
Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp (``Shrimp'')
from Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries dated June
20, 2006, at Attachment II (``Surrogate Country Lists'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
in an antidumping administrative review and a new shipper review,
interested parties may submit publicly available information to value
FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary
results.
U.S. Price
A. Export Price
In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the
export price (``EP'') for sales to the United States for Fish One
because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the
date of importation and the use of constructed EP (``CEP'') was not
otherwise warranted. We calculated EP based on the price to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with
section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we deducted from the
starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight and
brokerage and handling. Each of these services was either provided by
an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, we based the
deduction of these movement charges on surrogate values. Additionally,
for international freight provided by a market economy provider and
paid in U.S. dollars, we
[[Page 10696]]
used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. See Factor Valuation
Memo for details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses.
B. Constructed Export Price
For Grobest, we based U.S. price on CEP in accordance with section
772(b) of the Act, because sales were made on behalf of the Vietnam-
based company by its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers. For
Grobest's sales, we based CEP on prices to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions
from the starting price (gross unit price) for foreign movement
expenses, international movement expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and
appropriate selling adjustments, in accordance with section
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in
the United States. We deducted, where appropriate, commissions,
inventory carrying costs, credit expenses, and indirect selling
expenses. Where foreign movement expenses, international movement
expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by Vietnam service
providers or paid for in Vietnamese Dong, we valued these services
using surrogate values (see ``Factors of Production'' section below for
further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by a market-
economy provider and paid for in market-economy currency, we used the
reported expense. Due to the proprietary nature of certain adjustments
to U.S. price, for a detailed description of all adjustments made to
U.S. price for Grobest, see Memorandum to the File, through Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Nicole Bankhead, Senior
Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty
New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co.,
Ltd. (``Grobest''), dated February 28, 2007.
Normal Value
1. Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using a factors-of-production methodology if the
merchandise is exported from an NME and the 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. The Department
bases NV on the FOP because the presence of government controls on
various aspects of non-market economies renders price comparisons and
the calculation of production costs invalid under the Department's
normal methodologies.
2. Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on factors of production reported by respondents for the POR,
except as noted above. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-
unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Bangladeshi
surrogate values. In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the
quality, specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate,
we adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. Specifically, we added to Bangladeshi import
surrogate values a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the
reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of
production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of
production where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v.
United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did
not use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we calculated freight based on
the reported distance from the supplier to the factory.
With regard to surrogate values and the market-economy input
values, we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or
suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that
prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India may
have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16,
2004) (``CTVs from the PRC'') at accompanying issues and decision
memorandum at Comment 7; see also Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel
Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651
(March 15, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 4. The legislative history provides that in making its
determination as to whether input values may be subsidized, the
Department is not required to conduct a formal investigation, rather,
Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information
that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. See
H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988).
Therefore, based on the information currently available, we have
not used prices from these countries either in calculating the
Bangladeshi import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-
economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was
obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used
Bangladeshi import-based surrogate values to value the input. Except as
discussed below, the Department used United Nations ComTrade Statistics
(``UN ComTrade''), provided by the United Nations Department of
Economic and Social Affairs' Statistics Division, as its primary source
of Bangladeshi surrogate value data.\18\ The data represents cumulative
values for the calendar year 2004, for inputs classified by the
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (``HS'') number. For
each input value, we used the average value per unit for that input
imported into Bangladesh from all countries that the Department has not
previously determined to be non-market economy (``NME'') countries.
Import statistics from countries that the Department has determined to
be countries which subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, Korea,
Thailand, and India) and imports from unspecified countries also were
excluded in the calculation of the average value. See CTVs from the
PRC, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ This can be accessed online at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/
comtrade/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the Department's practice to calculate price index adjustors
to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate values that are not
contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index for the
subject country. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Hand
Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China,
69 FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). However, in this case, a wholesale price
index was not available for Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly
available information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value
factors could not be obtained, surrogate values were adjusted using the
Consumer Price Index (``CPI'')
[[Page 10697]]
rate for Bangladesh, or the Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') for India
or Indonesia (for certain surrogate values where Bangladeshi data could
not be obtained), as published in the International Financial
Statistics (``IFS'') of the International Monetary Fund (``IMF'').
Certain surrogate values were calculated using data from the 2004
Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh (``Bangladesh Government
Statistics''), published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics,
Planning Division, Ministry of Planning. The information represents
cumulative values for the period of 2004. Certain other Bangladeshi
sources were used as well. See Factor Valuation Memo. The unit values
were initially calculated in takas/unit.
Bangladeshi and other surrogate values denominated in foreign
currencies were converted to USD using the applicable average exchange
rate based on exchange rate data from the Department's Web site.
Shrimp Value
The value of the main input, head-on, shell-on (``HOSO'') shrimp,
is an important factor of production in our dumping calculation as it
accounts for a significant percentage of normal value. As a general
matter, the Department prefers to use publicly available data to value
surrogate values from the surrogate country to determine factor prices
that, among other things represent a broad market average and are
contemporaneous with the POR. The Respondents and the Petitioner have
placed numerous Bangladeshi shrimp values on the record. In this case,
the Department has determined that data contained in a study of the
Bangladeshi shrimp industry published by the Network of Aquaculture
Centres in Asia-Pacific (``NACA''), an intergovernmental organization
affiliated with the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, is a
suitable surrogate value for shrimp from the surrogate country, namely,
Bangladesh.
The Department's practice when selecting the ``best available
information'' for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of
the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values
which are: publicly available, product-specific, representative of a
broad market average, tax-exclusive and contemporaneous with the POR.
See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain
Artist Canvas from the Peopl
