Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 10698-10707 [E7-4295]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10698-10707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4295]


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

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

AGENCY: 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

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 petitioner\2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 10699]]

were duplicated in the Notice of Initiation.
    Subsequently, the Department received withdrawal requests with 
respect to many of the companies. However, based upon our consideration 
of the responses to the quantity and value questionnaire and the 
resources available to the Department, we determined that it was not 
practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise 
for which a review request remained. As a result, on July 11, 2006, we 
selected the two largest remaining producers/exporters by export volume 
of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador during the POR, 
OceanInvest and Promarisco, as the mandatory respondents in this 
review. See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting 
Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled ``Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: 
Selection of Respondents,'' dated July 11, 2006. On this same date, we 
issued the antidumping questionnaire to OceanInvest and Promarisco.
    On July 20, 2006, we published a notice rescinding the 
administrative review with respect to 47 companies for which the 
requests for an administrative review were withdrawn in a timely 
manner,\3\ in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). See Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 41198 (July 20, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Among the 47 companies referenced in the rescission notice 
is one company we determined was a duplicate name for another 
company included in the review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received responses to section A of the questionnaire from 
Promarisco and OceanInvest on August 8 and August 15, 2006, 
respectively.
    On August 11, 2006, the petitioner submitted comments regarding 
third country market selection with respect to Promarisco.
    On August 25, 2006, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results in this review until no later than 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).
    We received responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire from 
OceanInvest and Promarisco on September 6, 2006. In addition, on this 
date Promarisco submitted a response to section D of the questionnaire.
    On September 19, 2006, we published a notice amending the 
initiation and partial rescission of the administrative review to 
include an additional company which was inadvertently omitted. See 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador; Notice of Amended 
Initiation and Amended Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 71 FR 54797 (September 19, 2006).
    On September 20, 2006, the petitioner requested that the Department 
initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of OceanInvest. On October 
20, 2006, we initiated this investigation. See Memorandum to James 
Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled 
``Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for 
OceanInvest S.A.,'' dated October 20, 2006 (OceanInvest COP Initiation 
Memo). On that date, we instructed OceanInvest to respond to the 
Department's section D questionnaire.
    We issued a supplemental section A, B, and C questionnaire to 
OceanInvest on September 21, 2006, and received responses on October 13 
and 17, 2006. We issued a supplemental section A, B, and C 
questionnaire to Promarisco on October 3, 2006, along with an 
additional information request on October 16, 2006, and received 
responses on October 11, 23, and 27, 2006.
    On October 17, 2006, the petitioner submitted additional comments 
on the appropriate comparison market to be used for Promarisco. 
Promarisco responded to these comments in its October 23, 2006, 
submission.
    On November 6, 2006, we determined that Spain constitutes the 
appropriate comparison market with respect to Promarisco. See 
Memorandum to James Maeder, Director Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from 
The Team entitled ``Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Market 
for Promarisco,'' dated November 6, 2006.
    OceanInvest submitted its response to section D of the 
questionnaire on November 16, 2006. In response to Department requests, 
OceanInvest also submitted additional information concerning its 
section B and C questionnaire responses on November 9, 20, and 28, 
2006.
    We issued a section D supplemental questionnaire to Promarisco on 
November 21, 2006, and to OceanInvest on December 19, 2006. On December 
22, 2006, and January 18, 2007, respectively, we received responses to 
these supplemental questionnaires. We issued additional supplemental 
section D questionnaires to OceanInvest on January 24 and February 5, 
2007, and to Promarisco on February 9, 2007. OceanInvest submitted its 
responses on February 2 and 12, 2007, and Promarisco submitted its 
response on February 21, 2007.
    We conducted a verification of OceanInvest's reported sales data in 
December 2007, and issued our verification report on January 18, 2007. 
In response to our January 22, 2007, request, OceanInvest submitted 
revised third-country and U.S. sales data bases reflecting certain 
verification findings on January 30, 2007.
    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 (January 
23, 2007).
    We conducted a verification of OceanInvest's reported cost data in 
February 2007. Our cost verification report will be issued following 
the preliminary results.

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,\4\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which includes 
the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 10700]]

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.

Partial Rescission of Review

    In response to our quantity and value data solicitation, Studmark, 
S.A. claimed that the only shipment of subject merchandise it made 
during the POR was being reviewed in the context of a new shipper 
review that was initiated prior to the initiation of this 
administrative review.\5\ Having confirmed the accuracy of this claim 
with CBP, and having issued final results in the new shipper review 
covering Studmark's single shipment, we are rescinding this review with 
respect to Studmark, S.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The final results of this new shipper review were published 
on September 20, 2006. See Notice of Final Results of New Shipper 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Ecuador, 71 FR 54977 (September 20, 2006) (NSR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is 
not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to 
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the 
form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot 
be verified.
    Doblertel, S.A., Pacfish, S.A. (Pacfish), and Sociedad Atlantico 
Pacifico, S.A. claimed that they made no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. However, because we 
were unable to confirm the accuracy of these companies' claims with 
CBP, we requested further information/clarification from them. Pacfish 
responded to our request,\6\ but Doblertel, S.A. and Sociedad Atlantico 
Pacifico, S.A. failed to provide the requested information/
clarification. By doing so, these companies withheld requested 
information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, 
pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, the Department 
preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Pacfish's response states that it erred in initially 
reporting that it made no shipments during the POR and acknowledges 
that it made a small quantity of sales during the POR. See ``Pacfish 
Response Submission to Department's September 19, 2006, Letter,'' 
and Memorandum to the File dated October 31, 2006. This information 
was generally consistent with the data obtained from CBP. 
Accordingly, we have determined that Pacfish was responsive to the 
Department's request for information, and therefore, are assigning 
to Pacfish the rate applied to other non-mandatory respondents in 
this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See also Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar 
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are 
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (SAA), 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Furthermore, 
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 
F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We preliminarily find 
that Doblertel, S.A. and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. did not act 
to the best of their abilities in this proceeding, within the meaning 
of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the 
Department's requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference 
is warranted in selecting from the facts otherwise available with 
respect to these companies. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
AFA, information derived from: 1) the petition; 2) the final 
determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any 
other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when 
selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, 
has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule 
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and 
accurate information in a timely manner.'' See, e.g., Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative

[[Page 10701]]

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 (November 7, 2006).
    In selecting an appropriate AFA rate, the Department considered: 1) 
the rates alleged in the petition (see Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 
Shrimp From Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People's Republic of 
China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 3876, 3879 (January 
27, 2004)); 2) the rates calculated in the final determination of the 
investigation, which ranged from 2.48 to 4.42 percent (see Notice of 
Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, 
70 FR 5156, 5157 (February 1, 2005) (LTFV Amended Final Determination 
and Order)); and 3) the rate calculated in the NSR, 9.20 percent. As 
discussed further below, we do not find that the rates alleged in the 
petition have probative value for purposes of this review. In addition, 
we find that the weighted-average rates calculated for respondents in 
previous segments of this proceeding, as well as in the instant review, 
are not sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts 
available rule (i.e., we do not find that any of these rates are high 
enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding 
in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). Therefore, we have 
preliminarily assigned a rate of 48.61 percent as AFA, which is the 
highest transaction-specific rate calculated for a respondent in this 
review. The Department has applied this methodology in previous 
proceedings, such as Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: 
Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 ( August 8, 2006), 
and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 15; and 
Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products From Italy: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 71 FR 39299 (July 12, 2006), and the accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 3. We consider the 48.61 percent rate to 
be sufficiently high so as to encourage participation in future 
segments of this proceeding.
    Section 776(c) of the Act provides that the Department shall, to 
the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary information from 
independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The Department's 
regulations provide that ``corroborate'' means that the Department will 
satisfy itself that the secondary information to be used has probative 
value. See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also SAA at 870. With respect to 
consideration of the rates alleged in the petition, information from 
prior segments of the proceeding constitutes secondary information and 
to the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information to be used.
    Because the companies did not submit information to the Department 
or participate in a previous segment of this proceeding, we do not have 
such information to consider in determining whether the petition rate 
is relevant to each of them. To determine whether the margin is 
reliable and relevant in this administrative review, we examined the 
transaction-specific rates of the respondents in this administrative 
review compared to the petition rates and found that they were not 
relevant for use in this administrative review. The highest 
transaction-specific rate calculated for a respondent in this review 
was 48.61 percent, which is substantially lower than the lowest margin 
alleged in the petition. We then examined the elements of the export 
price (EP) and NV calculations on which the margins in the petition 
were based. The petitioner based EP on the average unit values (AUVs) 
for Ecuadorian shrimp of various count sizes as calculated from CBP 
data and reported on a headless, shell-on (HLSO) basis. The petitioner 
based NV on an Italian price list for head-on, shell-on (HOSO) shrimp 
of various count sizes and made several adjustments to those prices, 
including conversion from an HOSO to an HLSO basis. We compared the EPs 
and NVs in the petition to entered values in the U.S. sales listings 
for both respondents, and gross unit prices for HLSO shrimp in the 
Italian market from OceanInvest's sales listing, respectively. Although 
we found the U.S. entered values reported in this review to be 
comparable to the AUVs in the petition, OceanInvest's POR sales prices 
in the Italian market were substantially different from the NVs in the 
petition. See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Procedures Conducted to 
Corroborate Data Contained in Petition for Assignment of Appropriate 
Adverse Facts Available Rate,'' dated February 28, 2007, for further 
discussion. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the petition rates have 
probative value for AFA assignment purposes in this review.
    As noted above, we do not find the weighted-average rates 
calculated for respondents in this and previous segments of this 
proceeding to be sufficiently adverse. Therefore, we are applying the 
highest transaction-specific rate calculated for the mandatory 
respondents in this review. With respect to corroboration of a rate 
calculated in a segment of a proceeding, we note that, unlike other 
types of information, such as input costs or selling expenses, there 
are no independent sources from which the Department can derive dumping 
margins. The only source for calculated dumping margins is 
administrative determinations. Thus, in an administrative review, if 
the Department chooses as total AFA a calculated dumping margin from 
the current or a prior segment of the proceeding, it is not necessary 
to question the reliability of the margin for that time period. See, 
e.g., Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate from France: Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 68 FR 44283, 44284 (July 28, 
2003) (unchanged in final). Therefore, given that we are using the 
highest of the transaction-specific rates calculated for the mandatory 
respondents in this administrative review, it is not necessary to 
question the reliability of this rate.
    The Department will, however, consider information reasonably at 
its disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a 
margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected 
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the 
margin and determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (February 22, 1996) (where the Department 
disregarded the highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was 
based on a company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
unusually high margin). Therefore, we examined whether any information 
on the record would discredit the selected rate as reasonable facts 
available and have found none. Because we did not find evidence 
indicating that the margin used as facts available in this proceeding 
is not appropriate, we have determined that the the highest 
transaction-specific rate calculated for any mandatory respondent in 
this administrative review is appropriate as AFA and are assigning this 
rate to Doblertel, S.A. and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp by 
OceanInvest and Promarisco to the United States were made at less than

[[Page 10702]]

NV, we compared EP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign 
like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of 
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section 
below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by OceanInvest and Promarisco covered by the 
description in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be foreign 
like products for purposes of determining appropriate product 
comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we 
compared U.S. sales to sales made in Italy for OceanInvest and Spain 
for Promarisco within the contemporaneous window period, which extends 
from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months 
after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in 
the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare 
to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 
foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making 
the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the 
physical characteristics reported by OceanInvest and Promarisco in the 
following order: cooked form, head status, count size, organic 
certification, shell status, vein status, tail status, other shrimp 
preparation, frozen form, flavoring, container weight, presentation, 
species, and preservative.
    With respect to Promarisco's U.S. sales of broken shrimp, we 
compared them to constructed value (CV), as Promarisco did not make any 
sales of broken shrimp in its comparison market.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by OceanInvest and Promarisco, we applied 
the EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, 
because the subject merchandise was sold directly to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation and 
constructed export price (CEP) methodology was not otherwise warranted 
based on the facts of record.
A. OceanInvest
    We based EP on FOB or delivered, duty-paid (DDP) prices to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, 
we made adjustments to the starting price for billing adjustments. We 
also made deductions to the starting price for demurrage expenses, 
foreign inland freight expenses, Ecuadorian brokerage and handling 
expenses, ocean freight expenses, U.S. customs duties (including 
merchandise processing and harbor maintenance fees), and U.S. brokerage 
and handling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    OceanInvest reported certain price adjustments and demurrage 
expenses as direct selling expenses. We reclassified these items as 
billing adjustments and movement expenses, respectively.
    As noted in the sales verification report (see ``Verification of 
the Sales Response of OceanInvest S.A. in the 2004-2006 Antidumping 
Administrative Review of Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador,'' 
Memorandum to the File dated January 18, 2007 (OceanInvest SVR)) at 
page 18, OceanInvest inadvertently reported many adjustments for glazed 
sales on a glaze-inclusive basis rather than glaze-exclusive basis. We 
recalculated the per-unit amounts to reflect a glaze-exclusive basis 
using the methodology outlined in the verification report.
    Based on our sales verification findings, we made minor revisions 
to the movement expenses reported for a small number of U.S. sales. See 
Memorandum to the File entitled ``OceanInvest S.A., Preliminary Results 
Notes and Margin Calculation,'' dated February 28, 2007 (OceanInvest 
Preliminary Results Memo).
B. Promarisco
    We based EP on CIF or DDP prices to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. We made deductions to the starting 
price for foreign inland freight expenses, ocean freight expenses, 
marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including merchandise 
processing and harbor maintenance fees), U.S. brokerage and handling 
expenses, and U.S. warehousing expenses, where appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets
    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    In the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation segment of this 
proceeding, the Department determined that a particular market 
situation existed which rendered the Ecuadorian market inappropriate 
for purposes of determining NV for the three respondents in the LTFV 
investigation, including Promarisco. See Memorandum dated June 7, 2004, 
entitled ``Home Market as Appropriate Comparison Market,'' as included 
at Exhibit A-2 of Promarisco's August 8, 2006, section A Questionnaire 
response. Promarisco reported that the particular market situation 
still applies to its home market sales and there is no information on 
the record to suggest otherwise. Accordingly, although the aggregate 
volume of Promarisco's home market sales of the foreign like product 
was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of U.S. sales for 
the subject merchandise, because of the particular market situation, we 
could not rely on Promarisco's home market sales for determining NV. 
Therefore, we used Promarisco's sales to Spain, Promarisco's largest 
third country market, as the basis for comparison-market sales. See 
Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from 
The Team entitled ``Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Market 
for Promarisco,'' dated November 8, 2006, for a more detailed 
discussion of this issue.
    Furthermore, based on our analysis of OceanInvest's questionnaire 
responses, we determined that OceanInvest's aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was insufficient to permit a 
proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.\7\ 
Therefore, with respect to OceanInvest, we used sales to Italy, which 
is OceanInvest's largest third country market, as the basis for 
comparison-market sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.404.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Because OceanInvest's sales in the home market did not meet 
the viability threshold, it was unnecessary to address whether a 
particular market situation existed with respect to such sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Level of Trade
    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling

[[Page 10703]]

activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. See, 
id. See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order 
to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in 
the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 
system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution), including 
selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\8\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general 
and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than 
the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability 
(i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a 
CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 
from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-33.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from each 
respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the 
reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of 
distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below.

1. OceanInvest

    OceanInvest sold frozen warmwater shrimp to distributors and 
traders in the U.S. market, and distributors in the Italian market. 
OceanInvest reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through 
two channels of distribution: FOB sales, and DDP. We examined the 
selling activities performed for these channels, and found that 
OceanInvest performed the following selling functions for both 
channels: packing, order input/processing, direct sales personnel 
services, and claim services (i.e., billing adjustments). In addition, 
for DDP sales, OceanInvest made freight and delivery arrangements. 
These selling activities can be generally grouped into two core selling 
function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing (e.g., order 
input/processing, direct sales personnel services, claim services); and 
2) freight and delivery. Accordingly, based on the core selling 
functions, we find that OceanInvest performed sales and marketing for 
all U.S. sales, and freight and delivery services as well for certain 
U.S. sales. We do not find that the provision of freight and delivery 
services for one channel of distribution is sufficient to distinguish 
it as a separate LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that 
there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the Italian market, OceanInvest reported one 
channel of distribution, FOB sales. We examined the selling activities 
performed for this channel, and found that OceanInvest performed the 
following selling functions: packing, order input/processing, direct 
sales personnel services, payment of commissions, and claim services 
(i.e., billing adjustments). These selling activities can be generally 
grouped into one core selling function for analysis: sales and 
marketing. Accordingly, we find that OceanInvest performed the core 
selling function of sales and marketing for all customers in the 
Italian market. Because all sales in the Italian market are made 
through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that 
there is one LOT in the Italian market.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the comparison market LOT and 
found that, with the exception of freight and delivery services 
performed on some U.S. sales, and the payment of commissions on Italian 
sales, the core selling functions performed for U.S. and Italian market 
customers are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that sales 
to the U.S. and Italian markets during the POR were made at the same 
LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted.

2. Promarisco

    Promarisco made direct sales of frozen warmwater shrimp to 
retailers, food processors, restaurant chains, and distributors in the 
U.S. market, and food processors and distributors in the Spanish 
market. Promarisco reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market on 
a CIF or DDP basis through one channel of distribution. We examined the 
selling activities performed for this channel, and found that 
Promarisco performed the following selling functions: sales 
forecasting, sales promotion, order input/processing, technical 
assistance, pay commissions, freight and delivery, and claim services. 
These selling activities can be generally grouped into two core selling 
function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing (e.g., order 
input/processing, sales promotion, claim services); and 2) freight and 
delivery. Accordingly, we find that Promarisco performed the core 
selling functions of sales and marketing, and freight and delivery for 
all customers in the U.S. market. Because all sales in the U.S. market 
are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the Spanish market, Promarisco reported that it 
made sales on an FOB, C&F, or CIF basis through one channel of 
distribution. We examined the selling activities performed for this 
channel, and found that Promarisco performed the following selling 
functions: sales forecasting, sales promotion, order input/processing, 
technical assistance, pay commissions, freight and delivery, and claim 
services. These selling activities can be generally grouped into two 
core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing 
(e.g., order input/processing, sales promotion, claim services); and 2) 
freight and delivery. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, 
we find that Promarisco performed sales and marketing for all Spanish 
sales, and freight and delivery services as well for certain Spanish 
sales. We do not find that the provision of freight and delivery 
services for some sales is sufficient to distinguish it as a separate 
LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in 
the Spanish market.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the comparison-market LOT and 
found that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and Spanish 
market customers are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that 
sales to the U.S. and Spanish markets during the

[[Page 10704]]

POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was 
warranted.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
    Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegations, we found 
that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
OceanInvest's sales of frozen warmwater shrimp in the third-country 
market were made at prices below their cost of production (COP). 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a 
sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether OceanInvest's sales 
were made at prices below their respective COPs. See OceanInvest

COP Initiation Memo.

    In the LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of 
this proceeding as of April 7, 2006, the publication date of the 
initiation of this review, we found that Promarisco had made sales 
below the cost of production. See Notice of Preliminary Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final 
Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador, 
69 FR 47091 (August 4, 2004); unchanged in Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador, 69 FR 76913,(December 23, 2004), 
and LTFV Amended Final Determination and Order. Thus, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that Promarisco made sales in the third-country 
market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the 
current review period. Accordingly, we instructed Promarisco to respond 
to the section D (Cost of Production) questionnaire.

1. Calculation of Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
respondents' COP based on the sum of their costs of materials and 
conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses (see ``Test of 
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of third 
country selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data 
submitted by each respondent in its most recent supplemental section D 
questionnaire response for the COP calculation, except for the 
following instances where the information was not appropriately 
quantified or valued.

a. OceanInvest

    We made an adjustment to OceanInvest's reported costs of 
manufacture to account for unreconciled costs. Our revision to 
OceanInvest's COP data is discussed in the Memorandum from Laurens van 
Houten, Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 
entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - OceanInvest, S.A.,'' dated 
February 28, 2007.

b. Promarisco

    We recalculated Promarisco's G0z7 A expense ratio to include 
research and development expenses. Our revision to Promarisco's COP 
data are discussed in the Memorandum from Frederick W. Mines, 
Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled 
``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for 
the Preliminary Results - Promarisco S.A.,'' dated February 28, 2007.

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the third country sales of the foreign like product, as 
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we 
used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices 
(inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of 
any applicable movement charges, and direct and indirect selling 
expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate, as discussed 
below under the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section.

3. Results of the COP Test

    In determining whether to disregard third country sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) or the Act: 1) whether, within an extended period 
of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and 2) whether 
such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all 
costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. 
Where less than 20 percent of the respondent's third country sales of a 
given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any 
below-cost sales of that product because we determine that in such 
instances the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period 
of time and in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of 
a respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the 
COP, we disregard the below-cost sales because: 1) they were made 
within an extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in 
accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and 2) based 
on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, 
they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of OceanInvest's and Promarisco's third country sales were at prices 
less than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the 
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore 
excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no 
useable third country sales in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared EPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. 
See ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section 
below.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

1. OceanInvest

    We based NV for OceanInvest on FOB prices to unaffiliated customers 
in Italy. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price 
for billing adjustments. We made deductions, where appropriate, from 
the starting price for foreign inland freight and Ecuadorian brokerage 
and handling expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) 
for imputed credit expenses, bank fees, testing fees, bill of lading 
fees, and international courier fees. As discussed above under ``Export 
Price,'' we recalculated the per-unit amounts for these expenses to 
reflect a glaze-exclusive basis. We also made adjustments in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred on 
comparison-market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales 
in one market but not the other. Specifically, as commissions were

[[Page 10705]]

granted in the Italian market but not in the U.S. market, we made an 
upward adjustment to NV for the lesser of 1) the amount of commission 
paid in the Italian market, or 2) the amount of indirect selling 
expenses incurred in the U.S. market.
    We also deducted comparison-market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the 
Act.
    OceanInvest reported certain price adjustments relevant to Italian 
sales as direct selling expenses. We reclassified these items as 
billing adjustments. We also recalculated the imputed credit expense 
for both U.S. and Italian sales to account for these items.
    We recalculated the reported per-unit commission expenses 
applicable to Italian sales based on our verification findings. See 
OceanInvest SVR at page 23 and OceanInvest Preliminary Results Memo.
    We recalculated indirect selling expenses to include the cost of a 
product sample. See OceanInvest Preliminary Results Memo.

2. Promarisco

    We calculated NV based on CIF, C&F or FOB prices to unaffiliated 
customers in the Spanish market. We made adjustments, where 
appropriate, to the starting price for billing adjustments. We made 
deductions from the starting price for movement expenses, including 
inland freight, marine insurance, and international freight, under 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in COS for imputed credit 
expenses. We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) 
for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. 
sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the 
other. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market 
but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV 
for the lesser of 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market, 
or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the 
comparison market. If commissions were granted in the comparison market 
but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV 
following the same methodology.
    We also deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the 
Act.
    In response to the Department's inquiry, Promarisco submitted a 
letter on February 14, 2007, explaining that three transactions 
reported in the Spanish sales data base with missing payment dates were 
actually free product samples. As this information was received too 
late for consideration in the preliminary results and did not include 
any supporting documentation, we have included these transactions in 
our calculation of NV and set the payment date equal to February 28, 
2007, the date of the preliminary results, for purposes of calculating 
imputed credit expenses.
    Promarisco reported in its December 22, 2006, questionnaire 
response that it did not recalculate the imputed credit expense after 
revisions were made to the Spanish market sales file to include certain 
missing payment dates in its October 27, 2006, questionnaire response. 
Accordingly, we recalculated the imputed credit expense for the Spanish 
market sales to account for the revised payment dates, based on 
Promarisco's methodology described in its response.
    Promarisco reported certain movement-related insurance expenses 
incurred on sales to Spain as direct selling expenses. We reclassified 
these expenses as movement expenses. In addition, we have corrected and 
recalculated these expenses and marine insurance expenses incurred on 
certain Spanish sales, in accordance with the information provided in 
Promarisco's February 12, 2007, submission.
    We recalculated indirect selling expenses to include certain 
expenses Promarisco excluded from its indirect selling expense 
calculation. See Memorandum to the File entitled ``Promarisco, S.A. 
Preliminary Results Notes and Margin Calculation,'' dated February 28, 
2007.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for 
those frozen warmwater shrimp products for which we could not determine 
the NV based on comparison-market sales because there were no useable 
sales of a comparable product, we based NV on the CV.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on 
the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for SG&]A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. For each respondent, we calculated the cost of materials and 
fabrication based on the methodology described in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section, above. We based SG&A and profit for each 
respondent on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the 
respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 
we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred 
on comparison-market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses to, CV.

Currency Conversion

    We did not make any currency conversions pursuant to section 773A 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 because all sales and cost data for both 
respondents were reported in U.S. dollars.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period August 4, 2004, through 
January 31, 2006, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OceanInvest, S.A....................................                4.54
Promarisco, S.A.....................................                1.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following 
Companies:\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This rate is based on the weighted-average of the margins 
calculated for those companies selected for individual review, 
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agrol S.A...........................................                2.25
Camarones (Camarones Del Mar COBUS S.A.)............                2.25
Comercializadora del Mar COMAR Cia. Ltda............                2.25
Empacadora y Exportadora Calvi Cia. Ltda............                2.25
Emprede S.A.........................................                2.25
Exportadora del Oceano Oceanexa C. A................                2.25
Fortumar Ecuador S.A................................                2.25
Gambas del Pacifico.................................                2.25
Hectorosa S.A.......................................                2.25
Inepexa S.A.........................................                2.25
Jorge Luis Benitez Lopez............................                2.25

[[Page 10706]]

 
Luis Loaiza Alvarez.................................                2.25
Mardex Cia. Ltda....................................                2.25
Marines C.A.........................................                2.25
Pacfish, S.A........................................                2.25
PCC Congelados & Frescos SA.........................                2.25
Pescazul S.A........................................                2.25
Productos Cultivados del Mar ``Proculmar'' Cia.                     2.25
 Ltda...............................................
Promarosa S.A.......................................                2.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doblertel S.A.......................................               48.61
Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A....................               48.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested 
parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of 
issuance of the last verification report in this case. Rebuttal briefs, 
limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later 
than 35 days after the date of issuance of the last verification report 
in this case. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 
proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: 1) a statement 
of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a table of 
authorities.
    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Room B-099, within 30 days of the 
date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the 
party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of 
participants; and 3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this 
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review.
    Regarding OceanInvest, for those sales where it reported the 
entered value of its U.S. sales, we will calculate importer-specific ad 
valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the examined sales for that importer. For those sales 
where OceanInvest did not report the entered value of its U.S. sales, 
we will calculate importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by 
aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those 
sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, 
in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), 
we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the 
estimated entered value.
    Regarding Promarisco, because it reported the entered value of all 
of its U.S. sales, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
the examined sales for that importer.
    For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual 
review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted-
average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected 
for individual review excluding any which are de minimis or determined 
entirely on AFA.
    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 (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de 
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The 
final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these 
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know 
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the ``All Others'' rate if there is no rate for the intermediary 
involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full 
discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific 
company listed above will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 
therefore, de minimis within the mea