Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Second Administrative Review, 13242-13246 [E7-5178]

Download as PDF 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of these final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the exporters listed above, the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 http://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 http://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 http://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