Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Second Administrative Review, 13242-13246 [E7-5178]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
13242
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices
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.
Cash Deposit Requirements
This administrative review and this
notice are published in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the
Act.
Dated: March 12, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
Appendix I
Notification to Interested Parties
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of these final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the
exporters listed above, the cash deposit
rate will be established in these final
results of review (except, if the rate is
zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5
percent, no cash deposit will be
required for that company); (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed PRC
and non–PRC exporters not listed above
that have separate rates, the cash
deposit rate will continue to be the
exporter–specific rate published for the
most recent period; (3) for all PRC
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will
be the PRC–wide rate of 157.68 percent;
and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of
subject merchandise which have not
received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the
PRC exporters that supplied that non–
PRC exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall
remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
International Trade Administration
This notice also serves as the final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
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 in the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as the only
reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (APO) of
their responsibility concerning the
return/destruction or conversion to
judicial protective order of proprietary
information disclosed under APO in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3).
Failure to comply is a violation of the
APO.
[A–552–801]
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Mar 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
General Issues
Comment 1: Appropriate Source for
Financial Ratios Surrogate Values
Comment 2: Classification of Labor in
Financial Ratios
Comment 3: NME Wage Rate
Comment 4: Zeroing
Comment 5: Appropriate Surrogate
Value for Hot–Rolled Steel
Company–Specific Issues
Since Hardware–Related Issues
Comment 6: Market Economy Purchases
Comment 7: By–Product Offset
Foshan Shunde–Related Issues
Comment 8: Rescission of Shunde
Yongjian and Foshan Shunde
Comment 9: Calculating a Margin for
Foshan Shunde
Comment 10: By–Product Clerical Error
Forever Holdings–Related Issues
Comment 11: Rescission of Forever
Holdings
Comment 12: Clerical Errors in
Surrogate Values
[FR Doc. E7–5170 Filed 3–20–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results of the Second Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (the
‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal
Register the preliminary results of the
second administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen fish fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). See
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR
53387 (September 11, 2006)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We gave
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results
and conducted verification of one
respondent, QVD Food Company, Ltd.
(‘‘QVD’’). Based upon our analysis of the
comments and information received, we
made changes to the dumping margin
calculations for the final results. See
Memorandum to the File from Julia
Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, through
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager;
Analysis for the Final Results of Certain
Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: QVD Food
Company, (March 12, 2007) (‘‘QVD
Final Analysis Memo’’.)
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia
Hancock, 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) 482–1394.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Preliminary Results for this
administrative review were published
on September 11, 2006. Since the
Preliminary Results, the following
events have occurred:
On September 18, 2006, QVD
requested an extension to submit
publicly available information to be
used in valuing surrogate factors of
production for the final results. On
September 22, 2006, the Department
extended the deadline for the
submission of publicly available
information for the final results to
November 20, 2006.
On November 15, 2006, the Catfish
Farmers of America and individual
processors, (‘‘Petitioners’’), requested an
extension to submit publicly available
information to be used in valuing
surrogate factors of production. On
November 17, 2006, the Department
extended the deadline for the
submission of publicly available
information for the final results to
January 4, 2007.
On January 3, 2007, QVD requested an
extension to submit publicly available
information to be used in valuing
surrogate factors of production for the
final results. On January 3, 2007, the
Department issued a letter to QVD
rejecting its extension request. On
January 4, 2007, QVD and Petitioners
submitted publicly available
information for the final results.
On January 16, 2007, Petitioners and
QVD submitted rebuttal comments on
the January 4, 2007, submissions on
publicly available information for the
final results. On January 19, 2007,
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices
Petitioners submitted a letter requesting
that the Department reject QVD’s
January 16, 2007, rebuttal comments
because they contained new factual
information. On January 22, 2007, QVD
submitted a letter in response to
Petitioners’ January 19, 2007, letter.
On January 26, 2007, the Department
rejected QVD’s January 16, 2007,
rebuttal comments as new factual
information and requested that QVD
resubmit its rebuttal comments without
this information. On January 29, 2007,
QVD resubmitted its January 16, 2007,
rebuttal comments without the new
factual information.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Verification
On November 1, 2006, the Department
issued verification outlines for QVD and
QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dong
Thap’’), for the on–site verifications
scheduled for November 27 through 29,
2006, and December 7 and 8, 2006.
Additionally, on November 7, 2006 the
Department issued verification outlines
for QVD Choi Moi Farming Cooperative
(‘‘Choi Moi’’) and Thuan An Seafood
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Thuan An’’), for the on–site
verifications scheduled for November
30, 2006 to December 6, 2006.
On November 21, 2006, Petitioners
submitted pre–verification comments.
On December 20, 2006, the Department
issued verification outlines for QVD
USA LLC (‘‘QVD USA’’) and Beaver
Street Fisheries, Inc. (‘‘BSF’’), for the
on–site verifications scheduled for
January 11 through 16, 2007.
On January 9, 2007, Petitioners
submitted pre–verification comments on
QVD USA and BSF. On January 29,
2007, the Department issued the
verification report of QVD, Dong Thap,
Choi Moi, and Thuan An. Additionally,
on January 30, 2007, the Department
issued the verification report of QVD
USA and BSF. On February 6, 2007,
QVD submitted comments on the
Department’s January 29, 2007,
verification report.
On March 9, 2007, the Department
placed copies of the QVD, Dong Thap,
Choi Moi, Thuan An, QVD USA, and
BSF verification exhibits on the record.
Case Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs
On September 22, 2006, the
Department extended the deadline for
the submission of case briefs and
rebuttal briefs. On November 17, 2006,
the Department further extended the
deadline for case briefs and rebuttal
briefs.
On February 1, 2007, Petitioners
submitted a letter to the Department
requesting an extension of the deadline
for the submission of case briefs and
rebuttal briefs. On February 1, 2007, the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Mar 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
Department again extended the deadline
for case briefs and rebuttal briefs.
On February 2 and 6, 2007, Valley
Fresh, Inc., QVD, and Petitioners
submitted case briefs. On February 6,
2007, the Department requested
comments on the revised FY 2004 non–
market economy (‘‘NME’’) wage rates, to
be submitted with the rebuttal briefs.
Additionally, on February 12, 2007, the
Department extended the deadline for
interested parties to submit rebuttal
briefs.
On February 13, 2007, the Department
confirmed that no interested party
would be submitting comments
regarding QVD’s February 6, 2007,
letter, regarding the attachment
contained in the Department’s January
29, 2007, verification report. On
February 13, 2007, the Department again
extended the deadline for interested
parties to submit rebuttal briefs. On
February 14, 2007, QVD and Petitioners
submitted rebuttal briefs, which also
contained comments on the
Department’s FY 2004 revised wage
rates.
On March 9, 2007, the Department
rejected Valley Fresh’s March 5, 2007,
submission as untimely, factual
information.
Hearing
On October 11, 2006, Petitioners
submitted a request for a public hearing.
On February 6, 2007, Petitioners
submitted a request for a portion of the
hearing to be closed. On February 15,
2007, the Department issued a letter to
interested parties regarding the schedule
of the hearing. Additionally, on
February 16, 2007, the Department
issued two letters regarding the
schedule and the logistics of the
hearing.
On February 16, 2007, Petitioners
withdrew their October 11, 2006, and
February 6, 2007, requests for a public
and closed hearing. On February 21,
2007, the Department issued a letter to
interested parties cancelling the hearing.
Extension of the Final Results
On November 24, 2006, the
Department extended the time limit for
completion of the final results of the
instant administrative review. See
Notice of Extension of Time Limit for
the Final Results of the Second
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 71 FR
67849 (November 24, 2006).
QVD
On September 6, 2006, QVD
submitted comments alleging that there
were clerical errors in the Preliminary
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13243
Results. On September 8, 2006,
Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments
in response to QVD’s September 6,
2006, letter. On September 11, 2006,
QVD submitted rebuttal comments in
response to Petitioners’ September 8,
2006, rebuttal comments. Additionally,
on September 11, 2006, the Department
issued a letter to QVD regarding QVD’s
allegation of clerical errors in the
Preliminary Results.
On September 18, 2006, the
Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to QVD. On September
29, 2006, QVD requested an extension to
respond to the Department’s
supplemental questionnaire.
Additionally, on September 29, 2006,
the Department extended the deadline
for QVD to respond to the supplemental
questionnaire to October 19, 2006.
On October 17, 2006, QVD submitted
a second extension request to respond to
the Department’s supplemental
questionnaire. On October 17, 2006, the
Department extended the deadline for
QVD to respond to its supplemental
questionnaire to October 23, 2006. On
October 23, 2006, the Department
received QVD’s supplemental
questionnaire response.
On November 3, 2006, Petitioners
submitted comments to the Department
regarding QVD’s October 23, 2006,
supplemental questionnaire response.
On November 8, 2006, the Department
issued a supplemental questionnaire to
QVD.
On November 14, 2006, the
Department issued a letter to QVD
requesting that QVD make certain
information public information. On
November 15, 2006, QVD submitted an
extension request for responding to the
Department’s November 8, 2006,
supplemental questionnaire.
Additionally, on November 16, 2006,
QVD submitted a letter stating that it
does not consent to the public release of
certain information. On November 17,
2006, the Department issued the
verification outline to QVD. On
November 21, 2006, QVD submitted a
response to the Department’s November
8, 2006, supplemental questionnaire.
On January 4, 2007, QVD submitted a
letter to the Department supplementing
its October 23, 2006, supplemental
questionnaire response. On January 16,
2007, QVD submitted pre–verification
corrections.
On February 1, 2007, the Department
issued a letter to QVD requesting that
QVD submit QVD’s U.S. sales and
factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’)
databases with the corrections from
verification. On February 7, 2007, QVD
submitted a revised version of its U.S.
sales and FOPs databases.
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
13244
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Scope Of The Order
The product covered by this order is
frozen fish fillets, including regular,
shank, and strip fillets and portions
thereof, whether or not breaded or
marinated, of the species Pangasius
Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus
(also known as Pangasius Pangasius),
and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish
fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish.
The fillet products covered by the scope
include boneless fillets with the belly
flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless
fillets with the belly flap removed
(‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets
cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’),
which include fillets cut into strips,
chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other
shape. Specifically excluded from the
scope are frozen whole fish (whether or
not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen
belly–flap nuggets. Frozen whole
dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and
eviscerated. Steaks are bone–in, crosssection cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are
the belly–flaps. The subject
merchandise will be hereinafter referred
to as frozen ‘‘basa’’ and ‘‘tra’’ fillets,
which are the Vietnamese common
names for these species of fish. These
products are classifiable under tariff
article codes 1604.19.40001,
1604.19.50002, 0305.59.40003,
0304.29.60334 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the
species Pangasius including basa and
tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).5 This
order covers all frozen fish fillets
meeting the above specification,
regardless of tariff classification.
Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs
1 See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy
Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import
Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third
Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1,
2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007.
2 See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy
Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import
Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third
Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1,
2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007.
3 See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy
Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import
Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Second
Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (February
2, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1,
2007.
4 See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy
Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import
Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets:
Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (January
30, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February
1, 2007.
5 Until July 1, 2004, these products were
classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30
(Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish
Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater
Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets)
of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these
products were classifiable under tariff article code
0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species
Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Mar 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
purposes, our written description of the
scope of the order is dispositive.
Analysis Of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties to this
proceeding and to which we have
responded are listed in the Appendix to
this notice and addressed in the Issues
and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Final
Decision Memo’’), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. Parties can find
a complete discussion of the issues
raised in this administrative review and
the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum which is on
file in the Central Records Unit
(‘‘CRU’’), room B–099 of the main
Department building. In addition, a
copy of the Final Decision Memo can be
accessed directly on our Web site at
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy
and electronic version of the Final
Decision Memo are identical in content.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the of
the Tariff Act, as Amended (‘‘the Act’’),
we conducted verification of the
information submitted by QVD, its
affiliated Vietnamese companies, Choi
Moi and Dong Thap, its Vietnamese
toller, Thuan An, and its affiliated U.S.
importer, QVD USA and other U.S.
importer, BSF, for use in our final
results. See Memorandum to the File,
through, Alex Villanueva, Program
Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
from, Julia Hancock, Senior Case
Analyst, and Javier Barrientos,
Financial Analyst, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Subject: Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, RE: Verification of Sales and
Factors of Production for Vietnam
Companies, (January 29, 2007)
(‘‘Vietnam Verification Report’’);
Memorandum to the File, through, Alex
Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office
9, from, Julia Hancock, Senior Case
Analyst, and Irene Gorelik, Case
Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, RE:
Verification of Sales of U.S. Companies,
(January 30, 2007) (‘‘U.S. Verification
Report’’). For all companies, we used
standard verification procedures,
including examination of relevant
accounting and production records, as
well as original source documents
provided by the Respondents.
Changes Since The Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record as
well as comments received from parties
regarding our Preliminary Results, we
have made revisions to the margin
calculation for QVD for the final results.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The following changes are addressed in
the Final Decision Memo: (1) a
recalculation of QVD’s weighted–
average database addressed in Comment
13, (2) the use of Choi Moi and
Company H’s FOPs for calculation of
NV addressed in Comment 1, (3) the use
of only QVD USA’s CEP sales to the first
unaffiliated customer addressed in
Comment 3, (4) the application of
partial adverse facts available to Choi
Moi’s unreported harvest labor
addressed in Comment 3, (5) the
calculation of QVD’s cash deposit and
assessment rates on a per–unit basis in
Comment 6, (6) changes to the following
surrogate values: surrogate financial
ratios, fish waste, labor, and ice
addressed in Comments 9 and 10, and
(7) changes to QVD’s margin program
language addressed in Comments 8 and
11. See QVDFinal Analysis Memo. See
also Memorandum from Julia Hancock,
Senior Case Analyst, through Alex
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9
and James C. Doyle, Office Director,
Office 9, to The File, Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’): Surrogate
Values for the Final Results, dated
March 12, 2006 (‘‘Final Factors Memo’’).
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides
that if an interested party: (A) withholds
information that has been requested by
the Department; (B) fails to provide such
information in a timely manner or in the
form or manner requested, subject to
subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act;
(C) significantly impedes a
determination 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.
Furthemore, section 776(b) of the Act
provides 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,’’ the Department may use
information that is adverse to the
interests of that party as facts otherwise
available. Adverse inferences are
appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party
does not obtain a more favorable result
by failing to cooperate than if it had
cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of
Administrative Action (‘‘SAA’’)
accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.
316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870
(1994). An adverse inference may
include reliance on information derived
from the petition, the final
determination in the investigation, any
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices
previous review, or any other
information placed on the record. See
section 776(b) of the Act.
Cataco
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department assigned total AFA to
Cataco. The Department did not receive
any comments regarding the Department
application of total AFA to Cataco.
Therefore, for the final results, we
continue to apply AFA to Cataco.
However, the Department did receive
comments on the calculation of Cataco’s
cash deposit and assessment rates
addressed in Comment 5 of the Final
Decision Memo, Cataco’s cash deposit
and assessment rates remain unchanged
for these final results.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Vietnam–Wide Entity
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department assigned total AFA to the
Vietnam–Wide Entity, including Can
Tho Animal Fishery Products
Processing Export Enterprise
(‘‘Cafatex’’), Mekong Fish Company
(‘‘Mekonimex’’), Nam Viet Company,
Ltd. (‘‘Navico’’), Phan Quan Trading
Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phan Quan’’), An Giang
Agriculture Technology Service
Company (‘‘ANTESCO’’), Anhaco, Binh
Dinh Import Export Company (‘‘Binh
Dinh’’), Vinh Long Import–Export
Company (‘‘Vinh Long’’), and An Giang
Agriculture and Foods Import–Export
Company (‘‘Afiex’’). The Department
did not receive any comments regarding
the Vietnam–Wide Entity. Therefore, for
the final results, we continue to apply
AFA to the Vietnam–Wide Entity and
continue to treat Cafatex, Mekonimex,
Navico, Phan Quan, Afiex, ANTESCO,
Anhaco, Binh Ding, and Vinh Long as
part of the Vietnam–Wide Entity.
calculated importer–specific duty
assessment rates on a per–unit basis.
Specifically, we divided the total
dumping margins (calculated as the
difference between normal value and
export price or constructed export price)
for each importer by the total quantity
of subject merchandise sold to that
importer during the POR to calculate a
per–unit assessment amount. In this and
future reviews, we will direct CBP to
assess importer–specific assessment
rates based on the resulting per–unit
(i.e., per–kilogram) rates by the weight
in kilograms of each entry of the subject
merchandise during the POR. The
Department will issue appropriate
assessment instructions directly to the
CBP within 15 days of publication of the
final results of this administrative
review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash–deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for
consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash
deposit rate for each of the reviewed
companies that received a separate rate
in this review will be the rate listed in
the final results of review (except that
if the rate for a particular company is de
minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no
cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously
investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be
the company–specific rate published for
the most recent period; (3) if the
exporter is not a firm covered in this
Final Results Of Review
review, a prior review, or the original
The weighted–average dumping
LTFV investigation, but the
margins for the POR are as follows:
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate
CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM will be the rate established for the most
recent period for the manufacturer of
VIETNAM
the merchandise; and (4) the cash
Weighted–Average deposit rate for all other manufacturers
Manufacturer/Exporter
or exporters (including Cafatex,
Margin (Percent)
Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan or
QVD ..............................
21.23 Afiex) will be the Vietnam–wide rate of
Cataco ..........................
80.88
63.88 percent, as explained in the Final
Vietnam–Wide Entity6 ...
63.88
Decision Memo. These deposit
6 The Vietnam-wide Entity includes Cafatex,
requirements, when imposed, shall
Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan, Afiex, remain in effect until publication of the
ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Ding, and Vinh
final results of the next administrative
Long.
review.
Assessment
7 In our Preliminary Results, for those
The Department will determine, and
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection respondents who reported an entered value, we
divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping
sales by the total entered value of those reviewed
duties on all appropriate entries,
sales of each applicable importer to calculate an ad
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). We have valorem assessment rate.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Mar 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13245
Reimbursement Of Duties
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)
to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this POR. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Department’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this
administrative review and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 12, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I – Decision Memorandum
Issues For The Final Results:
Comment 1: Affiliation Issues
A. Company H
B. Choi Moi
C. Company A2, Company B, and
Company K
D. QVD USA/BSF and Constructed
Export Price (‘‘CEP’’) Sales
Comment 2: Total Adverse Facts
Available
A. CEP Sales
B. Choi Moi
C. Thuan An
D. Dong Thap
E. CONNUM–Specific Factors of
Production (‘‘FOPS’’)
Comment 3: Partial AFA for FOPs
A. Choi Moi’s FOPs
B. Thuan An’s FOPs
C. Company H’s Fish Waste
D. CONNUM–Specific FOPs
E. Factor X
Comment 4: Valley Fresh
Comment 5: Reimbursement
Comment 6: Cash Deposit and
Assessement
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
13246
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices
Comment 7: Corrections to U.S. Sales
A. Entered Value
B. International Freight
C. U.S. Inland Freight from
Warehouse
Comment 8: Surrogate Values
A. Fish Waste
B. Whole Fish
C. Ice
D. Wage Rates
Comment 9: Surrogate Financial Ratios
A. Bionic Seafoods
B. Calculation of Ratios
Comment 10: Clerical Errors in Margin
Calculation
A. Conversion of Water
B. Assessment Rate: Importer of
Record vs. Customer Code
C. Exchange Rates
D. Containerization
Comment 11: CEP Verification Report
Comment 12: Denominator and
Numerator of FOPs
A. Choi Moi’s Denominator
B. Thuan An and Dong Thap’s
Numerator
C. Thuan An’s Denominator
D. Dong Thap’s Numerator and
Denominator
Comment 13: Thuan An’s Financial
Statements
Comment 14: Gross Weight vs. Net
Weight
Comment 15: New Factual Information
Comment 16: Clarification of Vietnam
Verification Report
[FR Doc. E7–5178 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
Antidumping Methodologies in
Proceedings Involving Non–Market
Economy Countries: Surrogate
Country Selection and Separate Rates
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Request for Comment.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) requests public
comment on two aspects of its non–
market economy (‘‘NME’’) methodology
in antidumping proceedings. First, the
Department seeks comment on certain
aspects of the methodology by which it
selects an economically comparable
surrogate market economy country for
the NME country under investigation or
review. Second, the Department is
requesting comment on the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:08 Mar 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
methodology under which individual
NME exporters can demonstrate
independence from government control
of their export activities and thereby
qualify for separate rate status.
DATES: Comments must be submitted by
thirty days from the publication of this
notice.
ADDRESSES: Written comments (original
and six copies) should be sent to David
Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room
1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th
Street NW, Washington, DC, 20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lawrence Norton, Economist, or
Anthony Hill, Senior International
Economist, Office of Policy, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20230,
202–482–1579 or 202–482–1843,
respectively.
Issue One: Surrogate Country Selection
Background
In antidumping proceedings involving
NME countries, the Department
calculates normal value by valuing the
NME producer’s factors of production,
to the extent possible, using prices from
a market economy that is at a
comparable level of economic
development and that is also a
significant producer of comparable
merchandise. The Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘the Act’’), provides broad
discretion in the selection of surrogate
market economy countries to value
NME factors of production. In
particular, section 773(c)(1)(B) of the
Act reads:
...the valuation of the factors of
production shall be based on the
best available information regarding
the values of such factors in a
market economy country or
countries considered to be
appropriate by the administering
authority.
Section 773(c)(4) of the Act adds:
The administering authority, in
valuing factors of production under
paragraph (1), shall utilize, to the
extent possible, the prices or costs
of factors of production in one or
more market economy countries
that are
A. at a level of economic development
comparable to that of the nonmarket
economy country, and
B. a significant producer of
comparable merchandise.
The Act does not provide a definition
of ‘‘comparable level of economic
development,’’ ‘‘comparable
merchandise,’’ or ‘‘significant
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
producer.’’ However, the Department’s
regulations do provide guidelines for
comparing levels of economic
development. 19 CFR 351.408(b) reads:
Economic Comparability. In
determining whether a country is at a
level of economic development
comparable to the nonmarket economy
country under section 773(c)(2)(B) or
section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act, the
Secretary will place primary emphasis
on per capita GDP as the measure of
economic comparability.
Finally, the Department provided
further guidance on economic
comparability in a 2004 Policy Bulletin,
establishing a sequential procedure for
selecting a surrogate country, with
economic comparability being the first
factor considered. Import
Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1
states1:
First, early in a proceeding, the
Operations team sends the Office of
Policy (‘‘OP’’) a written request for
a list of potential surrogate
countries. In response, OP provides
a list of potential surrogate
countries that are at a comparable
level of economic development to
the NME country. OP determines
economic comparability on the
basis of per capita gross national
income, as reported in the most
current annual issue of the World
Development Report (The World
Bank). The surrogate countries on
the list are not ranked and should
be considered equivalent in terms
of economic comparability. Both
the team’s written request and OP’s
response should be made available
to interested parties by being placed
on the record of the proceeding.
As noted above, in each proceeding,
the Department generates a list of
potential surrogate countries. In
constructing this list, the Department
orders the per capita gross national
income (‘‘GNI’’) figures as reported in
the latest available published edition of
the World Bank’s World Development
Report, disregarding countries
designated as NMEs during the period
of review.2 From among the remaining
group of countries, the Department
selects approximately five with similar
levels of economic development to the
NME that have offered, in the
1 The full text of the policy bulletin can be found
at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html.
2 The Department now uses per capita GNI, rather
than per capita GDP, because while the two
measures are very similar, per capita GNI is
reported across almost all countries by an
authoritative source (the World Bank), and because
the Department believes that the per capita GNI
represents the single best measure of a country’s
level of total income and thus level of economic
development.
E:\FR\FM\21MRN1.SGM
21MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13242-13246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5178]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-552-801]
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Final Results of the Second Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the Department of Commerce (the
``Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary
results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty
order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (``Vietnam''). See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 53387 (September 11, 2006) (``Preliminary
Results''). We gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the
Preliminary Results and conducted verification of one respondent, QVD
Food Company, Ltd. (``QVD''). Based upon our analysis of the comments
and information received, we made changes to the dumping margin
calculations for the final results. See Memorandum to the File from
Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program
Manager; Analysis for the Final Results of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: QVD Food Company, (March 12,
2007) (``QVD Final Analysis Memo''.)
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia Hancock, 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) 482-1394.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Case History
The Preliminary Results for this administrative review were
published on September 11, 2006. Since the Preliminary Results, the
following events have occurred:
On September 18, 2006, QVD requested an extension to submit
publicly available information to be used in valuing surrogate factors
of production for the final results. On September 22, 2006, the
Department extended the deadline for the submission of publicly
available information for the final results to November 20, 2006.
On November 15, 2006, the Catfish Farmers of America and individual
processors, (``Petitioners''), requested an extension to submit
publicly available information to be used in valuing surrogate factors
of production. On November 17, 2006, the Department extended the
deadline for the submission of publicly available information for the
final results to January 4, 2007.
On January 3, 2007, QVD requested an extension to submit publicly
available information to be used in valuing surrogate factors of
production for the final results. On January 3, 2007, the Department
issued a letter to QVD rejecting its extension request. On January 4,
2007, QVD and Petitioners submitted publicly available information for
the final results.
On January 16, 2007, Petitioners and QVD submitted rebuttal
comments on the January 4, 2007, submissions on publicly available
information for the final results. On January 19, 2007,
[[Page 13243]]
Petitioners submitted a letter requesting that the Department reject
QVD's January 16, 2007, rebuttal comments because they contained new
factual information. On January 22, 2007, QVD submitted a letter in
response to Petitioners' January 19, 2007, letter.
On January 26, 2007, the Department rejected QVD's January 16,
2007, rebuttal comments as new factual information and requested that
QVD resubmit its rebuttal comments without this information. On January
29, 2007, QVD resubmitted its January 16, 2007, rebuttal comments
without the new factual information.
Verification
On November 1, 2006, the Department issued verification outlines
for QVD and QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd. (``Dong Thap''), for the on-
site verifications scheduled for November 27 through 29, 2006, and
December 7 and 8, 2006. Additionally, on November 7, 2006 the
Department issued verification outlines for QVD Choi Moi Farming
Cooperative (``Choi Moi'') and Thuan An Seafood Co., Ltd. (``Thuan
An''), for the on-site verifications scheduled for November 30, 2006 to
December 6, 2006.
On November 21, 2006, Petitioners submitted pre-verification
comments. On December 20, 2006, the Department issued verification
outlines for QVD USA LLC (``QVD USA'') and Beaver Street Fisheries,
Inc. (``BSF''), for the on-site verifications scheduled for January 11
through 16, 2007.
On January 9, 2007, Petitioners submitted pre-verification comments
on QVD USA and BSF. On January 29, 2007, the Department issued the
verification report of QVD, Dong Thap, Choi Moi, and Thuan An.
Additionally, on January 30, 2007, the Department issued the
verification report of QVD USA and BSF. On February 6, 2007, QVD
submitted comments on the Department's January 29, 2007, verification
report.
On March 9, 2007, the Department placed copies of the QVD, Dong
Thap, Choi Moi, Thuan An, QVD USA, and BSF verification exhibits on the
record.
Case Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs
On September 22, 2006, the Department extended the deadline for the
submission of case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On November 17, 2006,
the Department further extended the deadline for case briefs and
rebuttal briefs.
On February 1, 2007, Petitioners submitted a letter to the
Department requesting an extension of the deadline for the submission
of case briefs and rebuttal briefs. On February 1, 2007, the Department
again extended the deadline for case briefs and rebuttal briefs.
On February 2 and 6, 2007, Valley Fresh, Inc., QVD, and Petitioners
submitted case briefs. On February 6, 2007, the Department requested
comments on the revised FY 2004 non-market economy (``NME'') wage
rates, to be submitted with the rebuttal briefs. Additionally, on
February 12, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for interested
parties to submit rebuttal briefs.
On February 13, 2007, the Department confirmed that no interested
party would be submitting comments regarding QVD's February 6, 2007,
letter, regarding the attachment contained in the Department's January
29, 2007, verification report. On February 13, 2007, the Department
again extended the deadline for interested parties to submit rebuttal
briefs. On February 14, 2007, QVD and Petitioners submitted rebuttal
briefs, which also contained comments on the Department's FY 2004
revised wage rates.
On March 9, 2007, the Department rejected Valley Fresh's March 5,
2007, submission as untimely, factual information.
Hearing
On October 11, 2006, Petitioners submitted a request for a public
hearing. On February 6, 2007, Petitioners submitted a request for a
portion of the hearing to be closed. On February 15, 2007, the
Department issued a letter to interested parties regarding the schedule
of the hearing. Additionally, on February 16, 2007, the Department
issued two letters regarding the schedule and the logistics of the
hearing.
On February 16, 2007, Petitioners withdrew their October 11, 2006,
and February 6, 2007, requests for a public and closed hearing. On
February 21, 2007, the Department issued a letter to interested parties
cancelling the hearing.
Extension of the Final Results
On November 24, 2006, the Department extended the time limit for
completion of the final results of the instant administrative review.
See Notice of Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the
Second Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 71 FR 67849 (November
24, 2006).
QVD
On September 6, 2006, QVD submitted comments alleging that there
were clerical errors in the Preliminary Results. On September 8, 2006,
Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments in response to QVD's September
6, 2006, letter. On September 11, 2006, QVD submitted rebuttal comments
in response to Petitioners' September 8, 2006, rebuttal comments.
Additionally, on September 11, 2006, the Department issued a letter to
QVD regarding QVD's allegation of clerical errors in the Preliminary
Results.
On September 18, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to QVD. On September 29, 2006, QVD requested an extension
to respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire.
Additionally, on September 29, 2006, the Department extended the
deadline for QVD to respond to the supplemental questionnaire to
October 19, 2006.
On October 17, 2006, QVD submitted a second extension request to
respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire. On October 17,
2006, the Department extended the deadline for QVD to respond to its
supplemental questionnaire to October 23, 2006. On October 23, 2006,
the Department received QVD's supplemental questionnaire response.
On November 3, 2006, Petitioners submitted comments to the
Department regarding QVD's October 23, 2006, supplemental questionnaire
response. On November 8, 2006, the Department issued a supplemental
questionnaire to QVD.
On November 14, 2006, the Department issued a letter to QVD
requesting that QVD make certain information public information. On
November 15, 2006, QVD submitted an extension request for responding to
the Department's November 8, 2006, supplemental questionnaire.
Additionally, on November 16, 2006, QVD submitted a letter stating that
it does not consent to the public release of certain information. On
November 17, 2006, the Department issued the verification outline to
QVD. On November 21, 2006, QVD submitted a response to the Department's
November 8, 2006, supplemental questionnaire.
On January 4, 2007, QVD submitted a letter to the Department
supplementing its October 23, 2006, supplemental questionnaire
response. On January 16, 2007, QVD submitted pre-verification
corrections.
On February 1, 2007, the Department issued a letter to QVD
requesting that QVD submit QVD's U.S. sales and factors of production
(``FOPs'') databases with the corrections from verification. On
February 7, 2007, QVD submitted a revised version of its U.S. sales and
FOPs databases.
[[Page 13244]]
Scope Of The Order
The product covered by this order is frozen fish fillets, including
regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not
breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius
Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius), and Pangasius
Micronemus. Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The
fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the
belly flap intact (``regular'' fillets), boneless fillets with the
belly flap removed (``shank'' fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into
strips (``fillet strips/finger''), which include fillets cut into
strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically
excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed),
frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish
are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-
section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject
merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen ``basa'' and
``tra'' fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these
species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article
codes 1604.19.4000\1\, 1604.19.5000\2\, 0305.59.4000\3\,
0304.29.6033\4\ (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius including
basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(``HTSUS'').\5\ This order covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the
above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish
Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1,
2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007.
\2\ See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish
Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1,
2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007.
\3\ See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish
Fillets: Second Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (February 2,
2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007.
\4\ See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish
Fillets: Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (January 30, 2007).
This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007.
\5\ Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under
tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets),
0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen
Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of
the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these products were classifiable
under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the
species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis Of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to
this proceeding and to which we have responded are listed in the
Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum (``Final Decision Memo''), which is hereby adopted by this
notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of the issues raised in
this administrative review and the corresponding recommendations in
this public memorandum which is on file in the Central Records Unit
(``CRU''), room B-099 of the main Department building. In addition, a
copy of the Final Decision Memo can be accessed directly on our Web
site at https://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and electronic version
of the Final Decision Memo are identical in content.
Verification
As provided in section 782(i) of the of the Tariff Act, as Amended
(``the Act''), we conducted verification of the information submitted
by QVD, its affiliated Vietnamese companies, Choi Moi and Dong Thap,
its Vietnamese toller, Thuan An, and its affiliated U.S. importer, QVD
USA and other U.S. importer, BSF, for use in our final results. See
Memorandum to the File, through, Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from, Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, and
Javier Barrientos, Financial Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9,
Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam, RE: Verification of Sales and Factors of Production for
Vietnam Companies, (January 29, 2007) (``Vietnam Verification
Report''); Memorandum to the File, through, Alex Villanueva, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from, Julia Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, and
Irene Gorelik, Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Subject:
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, RE:
Verification of Sales of U.S. Companies, (January 30, 2007) (``U.S.
Verification Report''). For all companies, we used standard
verification procedures, including examination of relevant accounting
and production records, as well as original source documents provided
by the Respondents.
Changes Since The Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record as well as comments received from
parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made revisions to
the margin calculation for QVD for the final results. The following
changes are addressed in the Final Decision Memo: (1) a recalculation
of QVD's weighted-average database addressed in Comment 13, (2) the use
of Choi Moi and Company H's FOPs for calculation of NV addressed in
Comment 1, (3) the use of only QVD USA's CEP sales to the first
unaffiliated customer addressed in Comment 3, (4) the application of
partial adverse facts available to Choi Moi's unreported harvest labor
addressed in Comment 3, (5) the calculation of QVD's cash deposit and
assessment rates on a per-unit basis in Comment 6, (6) changes to the
following surrogate values: surrogate financial ratios, fish waste,
labor, and ice addressed in Comments 9 and 10, and (7) changes to QVD's
margin program language addressed in Comments 8 and 11. See QVDFinal
Analysis Memo. See also Memorandum from Julia Hancock, Senior Case
Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 and James
C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, to The File, Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam''): Surrogate Values for the Final
Results, dated March 12, 2006 (``Final Factors Memo'').
Adverse Facts Available
Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that if an interested party:
(A) withholds information that has been requested by the Department;
(B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or in the form
or manner requested, subject to subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the
Act; (C) significantly impedes a determination 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.
Furthemore, section 776(b) of the Act provides 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,'' the Department may use information that is adverse to
the interests of that party as facts otherwise available. Adverse
inferences are appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a
more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated
fully.'' See Statement of Administrative Action (``SAA'') accompanying
the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 (1994). An
adverse inference may include reliance on information derived from the
petition, the final determination in the investigation, any
[[Page 13245]]
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See
section 776(b) of the Act.
Cataco
In the Preliminary Results, the Department assigned total AFA to
Cataco. The Department did not receive any comments regarding the
Department application of total AFA to Cataco. Therefore, for the final
results, we continue to apply AFA to Cataco. However, the Department
did receive comments on the calculation of Cataco's cash deposit and
assessment rates addressed in Comment 5 of the Final Decision Memo,
Cataco's cash deposit and assessment rates remain unchanged for these
final results.
Vietnam-Wide Entity
In the Preliminary Results, the Department assigned total AFA to
the Vietnam-Wide Entity, including Can Tho Animal Fishery Products
Processing Export Enterprise (``Cafatex''), Mekong Fish Company
(``Mekonimex''), Nam Viet Company, Ltd. (``Navico''), Phan Quan Trading
Co., Ltd. (``Phan Quan''), An Giang Agriculture Technology Service
Company (``ANTESCO''), Anhaco, Binh Dinh Import Export Company (``Binh
Dinh''), Vinh Long Import-Export Company (``Vinh Long''), and An Giang
Agriculture and Foods Import-Export Company (``Afiex''). The Department
did not receive any comments regarding the Vietnam-Wide Entity.
Therefore, for the final results, we continue to apply AFA to the
Vietnam-Wide Entity and continue to treat Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico,
Phan Quan, Afiex, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Ding, and Vinh Long as part of
the Vietnam-Wide Entity.
Final Results Of Review
The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-Average
Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
QVD................................................. 21.23
Cataco.............................................. 80.88
Vietnam-Wide Entity\6\.............................. 63.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Vietnam-wide Entity includes Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico, Phan
Quan, Afiex, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Ding, and Vinh Long.
Assessment
The Department will determine, and the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). We have calculated
importer-specific duty assessment rates on a per-unit basis.
Specifically, we divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the
difference between normal value and export price or constructed export
price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise
sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment
amount. In this and future reviews, we will direct CBP to assess
importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit
(i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of
the subject merchandise during the POR. The Department will issue
appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days
of publication of the final results of this administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In our Preliminary Results, for those respondents who
reported an entered value, we divided the total dumping margins for
the reviewed sales by the total entered value of those reviewed
sales of each applicable importer to calculate an ad valorem
assessment rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit
rate for each of the reviewed companies that received a separate rate
in this review will be the rate listed in the final results of review
(except that if the rate for a particular company is de minimis, i.e.,
less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that
company); (2) for previously investigated companies not listed above,
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm
covered in this review, a prior review, or the original LTFV
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other
manufacturers or exporters (including Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico, Phan
Quan or Afiex) will be the Vietnam-wide rate of 63.88 percent, as
explained in the Final Decision Memo. These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results
of the next administrative review.
Reimbursement Of Duties
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective orders (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby
requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO
is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 12, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I - Decision Memorandum
Issues For The Final Results:
Comment 1: Affiliation Issues
A. Company H
B. Choi Moi
C. Company A2, Company B, and Company K
D. QVD USA/BSF and Constructed Export Price (``CEP'') Sales
Comment 2: Total Adverse Facts Available
A. CEP Sales
B. Choi Moi
C. Thuan An
D. Dong Thap
E. CONNUM-Specific Factors of Production (``FOPS'')
Comment 3: Partial AFA for FOPs
A. Choi Moi's FOPs
B. Thuan An's FOPs
C. Company H's Fish Waste
D. CONNUM-Specific FOPs
E. Factor X
Comment 4: Valley Fresh
Comment 5: Reimbursement
Comment 6: Cash Deposit and Assessement
[[Page 13246]]
Comment 7: Corrections to U.S. Sales
A. Entered Value
B. International Freight
C. U.S. Inland Freight from Warehouse
Comment 8: Surrogate Values
A. Fish Waste
B. Whole Fish
C. Ice
D. Wage Rates
Comment 9: Surrogate Financial Ratios
A. Bionic Seafoods
B. Calculation of Ratios
Comment 10: Clerical Errors in Margin Calculation
A. Conversion of Water
B. Assessment Rate: Importer of Record vs. Customer Code
C. Exchange Rates
D. Containerization
Comment 11: CEP Verification Report
Comment 12: Denominator and Numerator of FOPs
A. Choi Moi's Denominator
B. Thuan An and Dong Thap's Numerator
C. Thuan An's Denominator
D. Dong Thap's Numerator and Denominator
Comment 13: Thuan An's Financial Statements
Comment 14: Gross Weight vs. Net Weight
Comment 15: New Factual Information
Comment 16: Clarification of Vietnam Verification Report
[FR Doc. E7-5178 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
