Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 15653-15655 [E7-6063]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
15653
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 62 / Monday, April 2, 2007 / Notices
DOC Case No.
ITC Case No.
Country
Product
Department Contact
Suspended Investigations.
No suspended investigations are scheduled for
initiation in April 2007.
Filing Information
As a courtesy, we are making
information related to Sunset
proceedings, including copies of the
Department’s regulations regarding
Sunset Reviews (19 CFR 351.218) and
Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department’s
schedule of Sunset Reviews, case
history information (i.e., previous
margins, duty absorption
determinations, scope language, import
volumes), and service lists available to
the public on the Department’s sunset
Internet website at the following
address: ‘‘https://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’
All submissions in these Sunset
Reviews must be filed in accordance
with the Department’s regulations
regarding format, translation, service,
and certification of documents. These
rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the
Department will maintain and make
available a service list for these
proceedings. To facilitate the timely
preparation of the service list(s), it is
requested that those seeking recognition
as interested parties to a proceeding
contact the Department in writing
within 10 days of the publication of the
Notice of Initiation.Because deadlines in
Sunset Reviews can be very short, we
urge interested parties to apply for
access to proprietary information under
administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’)
immediately following publication in
the Federal Register of the notice of
initiation of the sunset review. The
Department’s regulations on submission
of proprietary information and
eligibility to receive access to business
proprietary information under APO can
be found at 19 CFR 351.304–306.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Information Required from Interested
Parties
Domestic interested parties (defined
in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G)
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b))
wishing to participate in these Sunset
Reviews must respond not later than 15
days after the date of publication in the
Federal Register of this notice of
initiation by filing a notice of intent to
participate. The required contents of the
notice of intent to participate are set
forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In
accordance with the Department’s
regulations, if we do not receive a notice
of intent to participate from at least one
domestic interested party by the 15-day
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:21 Mar 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
deadline, the Department will
automatically revoke the orders without
further review. See 19 CFR
351.218(d)(1)(iii).
For sunset reviews of countervailing
duty orders, parties wishing the
Department to consider arguments that
countervailable subsidy programs have
been terminated must include with their
substantive responses information and
documentation addressing whether the
changes to the program were (1) limited
to an individual firm or firms and (2)
effected by an official act of the
government. Further, a party claiming
program termination is expected to
document that there are no residual
benefits under the program and that
substitute programs have not been
introduced. Cf. 19 CFR 351.526(b) and
(d). If a party maintains that any of the
subsidies countervailed by the
Department were not conferred
pursuant to a subsidy program, that
party should nevertheless address the
applicability of the factors set forth in
19 CFR 351.526(b) and (d). Similarly,
parties wishing the Department to
consider whether a company’s change
in ownership has extinguished the
benefit from prior non–recurring,
allocable, subsidies must include with
their substantive responses information
and documentation supporting their
claim that all or almost all of the
company’s shares or assets were sold in
an arm’s length transaction, at a price
representing fair market value, as
described in the Notice of Final
Modification of Agency Practice Under
Section 123 of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23,
2003) (Modification Notice). See
Modification Notice for a discussion of
the types of information and
documentation the Department requires.
If we receive an order–specific notice
of intent to participate from a domestic
interested party, the Department’s
regulations provide that all parties
wishing to participate in the Sunset
Review must file complete substantive
responses not later than 30 days after
the date of publication in the Federal
Register of this notice of initiation. The
required contents of a substantive
response, on an order–specific basis, are
set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note
that certain information requirements
differ for respondent and domestic
parties. Also, note that the Department’s
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
information requirements are distinct
from the Commission’s information
requirements. Please consult the
Department’s regulations for
information regarding the Department’s
conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please
consult the Department’s regulations at
19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms
and for other general information
concerning antidumping and
countervailing duty proceedings at the
Department.
This notice of initiation is being
published in accordance with section
751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c).
Dated: March 23, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–6071 Filed 3–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–552–801]
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Initiation of Antidumping Duty New
Shipper Reviews
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 2007.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) has determined that
three requests for a new shipper review
of the antidumping duty order on
certain frozen fish fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(‘‘Vietnam’’), received on January 31,
February 18 and February 28, 2007,
respectively, meet the statutory and
regulatory requirements for initiation.
For reasons discussed below, the
Department also determined that a
fourth request for a new shipper review
does not meet the requirements for
AGENCY:
1 In comments made on the interim final sunset
regulations, a number of parties stated that the
proposed five-day period for rebuttals to
substantive responses to a notice of initiation was
insufficient. This requirement was retained in the
final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As
provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the
Department will consider individual requests for
extension of that five-day deadline based upon a
showing of good cause.
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
15654
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 62 / Monday, April 2, 2007 / Notices
initiation. The period of review (‘‘POR’’)
for the three new shipper reviews which
the Department is initiating is August 1,
2006, through January 31, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cindy Lai Robinson and Michael
Holton, 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) 482–3797,
and (202) 482–1324, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Background
The notice announcing the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen fish fillets from Vietnam was
published in the Federal Register on
August 12, 2003.1 See Notice of
Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 47909
(August 12, 2003). On January 31,
February 21, and February 28, 2007,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), the
Department received four new shipper
review requests from Vinh Quang
Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Vinh Quang’’),
Ngoc Thai Company, Ltd. (‘‘Ngoc
Thai’’), Anvifish Co., Ltd., (‘‘Anvifish’’),
and Southern Fishery Industries
Company, Ltd. (‘‘South Vina’’),
respectively. Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai,
and Anvifish certified that they are both
the producer and exporter of the subject
merchandise upon which the request for
a new shipper review is based. In its
new shipper review request dated
February 28, 2007 (‘‘original request’’),
South Vina claimed that it is an exporter
of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam;
however, it did not provide any
information or documents supporting its
request for a new shipper review.
On March 8, 2007, Catfish Farmers of
America and individual U.S. catfish
processors (‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted
comments requesting that the
Department reject South Vina’s original
request because it failed to provide any
of the required certifications or
documents set forth in 19 CFR 351.214.2
On March 9, 2007, South Vina
submitted a certification and other
supporting documents alleging that the
certification was not available, and that
the new shipper regulation does not
require that the certification and
accompanying documentation be
submitted with the original request.
1 Therefore, a request for a new shipper review
based on the semiannual anniversary month,
February, was due to the Department by the final
day of February 2007. See 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1).
2 See below in Section Initiation of New Shipper
Reviews at B. South Vina for the requirements
specified in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:39 Mar 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
Furthermore, South Vina claimed that
the pertinent regulation merely requires
that the request for review be made
within one year of the date referred to
in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A). On
March 15, 2007, Petitioners submitted
additional comments urging the
Department to reject both South Vina’s
original new shipper review request and
its March 9, 2007, submission.
Petitioners reiterated their arguments
that South Vina’s original request failed
to meet any of the submission
requirements and should therefore be
rejected. Petitioners also argued that
South Vina’s March 9, 2007, submission
was untimely filed and should therefore
also be rejected. Citing 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2), Petitioners argued that
the Department’s regulations
unequivocally require applicants to
include the necessary certifications and
documentation with their new shipper
review request. In support of their
arguments, Petitioners also referred to
the Department’s ‘‘standard initiation
checklist’’ for new shipper reviews
which indicates that, if an application
does not satisfy the regulatory
requirements, the applicant may only
correct such deficiencies ‘‘{i}if
sufficient time remains ... prior to the
end of the appropriate anniversary
month or semi–annual anniversary
month.’’3 Petitioners contended that the
submission deadline in this case was
February 28, 2007. In other words,
Petitioners argued that South Vina
should have submitted all of the
regulatory requirements, including the
submission of the certifications and
supporting documentation, by the
deadline, February 28, 2007. Because
South Vina failed to do so in its original
request, Petitioners argued that South
Vina’s submissions should be rejected.
On March 22, 2007, South Vina
submitted a response to Petitioners’
objections of March 15, 2007,
comments. Citing several cases in which
the Department sent supplemental
questionnaires prior to initiation, South
Vina argued that the Department should
keep South Vina’s March 9, 2007,
supporting documentation and initiate a
new shipper review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of
the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (‘‘the
Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Vinh
Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish
certified that they did not export certain
frozen fish fillets to the United States
during the period of investigation
(‘‘POI’’). In addition, pursuant to section
751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Vinh Quang, Ngoc
3 See Petitioners’ March 15, 2007, submission at
pages 2 and 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Thai, and Anvifish certified that, since
the initiation of the investigation, they
have never been affiliated with any
Vietnamese exporter or producer who
exported certain frozen fish fillets to the
United States during the POI, including
those not individually examined during
the investigation. As required by 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Vinh Quang, Ngoc
Thai, and Anvifish also certified that
their export activities were not
controlled by the central government of
Vietnam.
In addition to the certifications
described above, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv), Vinh Quang, Ngoc
Thai, and Anvifish submitted
documentation establishing the
following: (1) The date on which Vinh
Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish first
shipped certain frozen fish fillets for
export to the United States and the date
on which the frozen fish fillets were
first entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption; (2) the
volume of their first shipment;4 and (3)
the date of their first sale to an
unaffiliated customer in the United
States.
The Department conducted CBP
database queries to confirm that Vinh
Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish’s
shipments of subject merchandise had
entered the United States for
consumption and that liquidation of
such entries had been properly
suspended for antidumping duties.
Initiation of New Shipper Reviews
A. Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and
Anvifish
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the
Department finds that Vinh Quang,
Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish’s requests meet
the threshold requirements for initiation
of a new shipper review for the
shipment of certain frozen fish fillets
from Vietnam they produced and
exported. See Memorandum to File from
Cindy Lai Robinson, Senior Analyst,
through Alex Villanueva, Program
Manager, Office 9, Initiaion of AD New
Shipper Review: Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets from Vietnam (A–552–801), dated
March 26, 2007.
B. South Vina
The Department finds that South
Vina’s original review request dated
4 Vinh Quang made no subsequent shipments to
the United States, while Ngoc Thai made one
subsequent shipment during the POR, which the
Department corroborated using data from U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’). On page 2
of its submission, Anvifish claimed no subsequent
shipments to the United States after its first sale;
however, the CBP data indicates that there were
subsequent shipments made by Anvifish.
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 62 / Monday, April 2, 2007 / Notices
February 28, 2007, did not provide any
required supporting documents and
therefore, it does not meet the threshold
requirements for initiation of a new
shipper review for the shipment of
certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam,
pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I)
and (II) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(i), 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A)
and (B), and 351.214(b)(2)(iv). With
respect to South Vina’s submission on
March 9, 2007, the Department agrees
with Petitioners that it was submitted
untimely for this semi–annual
anniversary month because it was
received nine days after the deadline,
February 28, 2007, which is the last day
of the semi–annual anniversary month.
The Department disagrees with South
Vina’s arguments that: (1) the new
shipper regulation does not require that
the certification and accompanying
documentation be submitted with the
original request; and (2) the pertinent
regulation merely requires that the
request for review be made ‘‘within one
year of the date referred to’’ in
paragraph 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A).
To the contrary, 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)
clearly specifies the ‘‘contents of
request,’’ which includes: (1) A
certification from the requester or its
producer stating that no subject
merchandise was exported to the United
States (‘‘U.S.’’) during the POI; (2) a
certification stating that since the
initiation of the investigation, the
requester has never been affiliated with
any exporter or producer who exported
subject merchandise to the U.S. during
the POI; (3) a certification stating no
government control over the requester’s
export activities in a nonmarket
economy case; and (4) information
regarding the date of the requester’s first
entry or shipment of subject
merchandise, the volume of the first and
all subsequent shipments of subject
merchandise to the U.S., and the date of
requester’s first sale to an unaffiliated
U.S. customer. Furthermore, 19 CFR
351.214(a) points out that the purpose of
the URAA to establish a new shipper
review procedure is to allow new
shippers the opportunity to attain their
own individual dumping margin on an
expedited basis. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.214(d), the Department is
required to initiate the new shipper
review within a month immediately
following the semi–annual anniversary
month or the anniversary month
depending on the date of the request.
Accordingly, the Department must have
all required supporting documents on
the record by the submission deadline
in order to initiate a new shipper review
in a timely manner.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:39 Mar 30, 2007
Jkt 211001
As noted above, on March 22, 2007,
South Vina submitted a list of cases
where the Department sent
supplemental questionnaires prior to
initiation and therefore, South Vina
argues, the Department should accept its
March 9, 2007, supporting
documentation and initiate a new
shipper review. However, in each case
cited by South Vina, the requestor
included the documents required by
section 351.214(b)(2) in its original
request, which South Vina did not
include in its February 28, 2007,
request. Because South Vina did not
provide any of the ‘‘contents of request’’
in its original request, and its
submission on March 9, 2007, is
untimely, the Department has
determined that South Vina’s request
does not meet the statutory and
regulatory requirements for initiation.
Therefore, the Department has removed
South Vina’s February 28, 2007, and its
March 9, 2007, submissions from the
record, and rejected South Vina’s new
shipper review request, in accordance
with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of
the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214.
The POR for the three new shipper
reviews is August 1, 2006, through
January 31, 2007. See 19 CFR
351.214(g)(1)(ii)(A). The Department
intends to issue the preliminary results
of these reviews no later than 180 days
from the date of initiation, and final
results of these reviews no later than
270 days from the date of initiation. See
section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act.
Interested parties requiring access to
proprietary information in this new
shipper review should submit
applications for disclosure under
administrative protective order in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and
351.306. This initiation and notice are
published in accordance with section
751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Dated: March 26, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–6063 Filed 3–30–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
PO 00000
15655
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–570–863)
Honey from the People’s Republic of
China: Expedited Partial Final Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On January 3, 2007, the
Department published the Preliminary
Results of the fourth administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on honey from the People’s Republic of
China (PRC). See Honey from the
People’s Republic of China: Preliminary
Results and Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 102 (January 3, 2007)
(Preliminary Results). This review
covers five exporters or producer/
exporters: (1) Anhui Honghui Foodstuff
(Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui); (2)
Chengdu Waiyuan Bee Products Co.,
Ltd. (Chengdu); (3) Jiangsu Kanghong
Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu);
(4) Kunshan Xin’an Trade Co., Ltd.
(Kunshan Xin’an); and (5) Wuhan
Shino–Food Trade Co., Ltd. (Shino–
Food). The period of review (POR) is
December 1, 2004, through November
30, 2005.
In response to a request from the
American Honey Producers Association
and the Sioux Honey Association
(collectively, petitioners), the
Department is expediting the final
results of this review for Chengdu, an
uncooperative respondent, because of
its extraordinary surge of exports and
the significant difference between
Chengdu’s current cash deposit rate of
22.03 percent and Chengdu’s
preliminary cash deposit rate of 212.39
percent based on total facts available
with adverse inference.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy
Lao or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–7924 or (202) 482–
3019, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
Since the Preliminary Results the
following events have occurred. On
January 12 and 29, 2007, counsel to the
petitioners met with Department
officials to discuss their concerns about
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\02APN1.SGM
02APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15653-15655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6063]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-552-801]
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 2007.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``Department'') has determined
that three requests for a new shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam (``Vietnam''), received on January 31, February 18 and February
28, 2007, respectively, meet the statutory and regulatory requirements
for initiation. For reasons discussed below, the Department also
determined that a fourth request for a new shipper review does not meet
the requirements for
[[Page 15654]]
initiation. The period of review (``POR'') for the three new shipper
reviews which the Department is initiating is August 1, 2006, through
January 31, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Lai Robinson and Michael Holton,
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-
3797, and (202) 482-1324, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The notice announcing the antidumping duty order on certain frozen
fish fillets from Vietnam was published in the Federal Register on
August 12, 2003.\1\ See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain
Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 47909
(August 12, 2003). On January 31, February 21, and February 28, 2007,
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), the Department received four new shipper
review requests from Vinh Quang Fisheries Corporation (``Vinh Quang''),
Ngoc Thai Company, Ltd. (``Ngoc Thai''), Anvifish Co., Ltd.,
(``Anvifish''), and Southern Fishery Industries Company, Ltd. (``South
Vina''), respectively. Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish certified
that they are both the producer and exporter of the subject merchandise
upon which the request for a new shipper review is based. In its new
shipper review request dated February 28, 2007 (``original request''),
South Vina claimed that it is an exporter of frozen fish fillets from
Vietnam; however, it did not provide any information or documents
supporting its request for a new shipper review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Therefore, a request for a new shipper review based on the
semiannual anniversary month, February, was due to the Department by
the final day of February 2007. See 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 8, 2007, Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S.
catfish processors (``Petitioners'') submitted comments requesting that
the Department reject South Vina's original request because it failed
to provide any of the required certifications or documents set forth in
19 CFR 351.214.\2\ On March 9, 2007, South Vina submitted a
certification and other supporting documents alleging that the
certification was not available, and that the new shipper regulation
does not require that the certification and accompanying documentation
be submitted with the original request. Furthermore, South Vina claimed
that the pertinent regulation merely requires that the request for
review be made within one year of the date referred to in 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A). On March 15, 2007, Petitioners submitted
additional comments urging the Department to reject both South Vina's
original new shipper review request and its March 9, 2007, submission.
Petitioners reiterated their arguments that South Vina's original
request failed to meet any of the submission requirements and should
therefore be rejected. Petitioners also argued that South Vina's March
9, 2007, submission was untimely filed and should therefore also be
rejected. Citing 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2), Petitioners argued that the
Department's regulations unequivocally require applicants to include
the necessary certifications and documentation with their new shipper
review request. In support of their arguments, Petitioners also
referred to the Department's ``standard initiation checklist'' for new
shipper reviews which indicates that, if an application does not
satisfy the regulatory requirements, the applicant may only correct
such deficiencies ``{i{time} if sufficient time remains ... prior to
the end of the appropriate anniversary month or semi-annual anniversary
month.''\3\ Petitioners contended that the submission deadline in this
case was February 28, 2007. In other words, Petitioners argued that
South Vina should have submitted all of the regulatory requirements,
including the submission of the certifications and supporting
documentation, by the deadline, February 28, 2007. Because South Vina
failed to do so in its original request, Petitioners argued that South
Vina's submissions should be rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See below in Section Initiation of New Shipper Reviews at B.
South Vina for the requirements specified in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2).
\3\ See Petitioners' March 15, 2007, submission at pages 2 and
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 22, 2007, South Vina submitted a response to Petitioners'
objections of March 15, 2007, comments. Citing several cases in which
the Department sent supplemental questionnaires prior to initiation,
South Vina argued that the Department should keep South Vina's March 9,
2007, supporting documentation and initiate a new shipper review.
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as
amended (``the Act''), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Vinh Quang, Ngoc
Thai, and Anvifish certified that they did not export certain frozen
fish fillets to the United States during the period of investigation
(``POI''). In addition, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and
Anvifish certified that, since the initiation of the investigation,
they have never been affiliated with any Vietnamese exporter or
producer who exported certain frozen fish fillets to the United States
during the POI, including those not individually examined during the
investigation. As required by 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Vinh Quang,
Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish also certified that their export activities
were not controlled by the central government of Vietnam.
In addition to the certifications described above, pursuant to 19
CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv), Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish submitted
documentation establishing the following: (1) The date on which Vinh
Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish first shipped certain frozen fish
fillets for export to the United States and the date on which the
frozen fish fillets were first entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption; (2) the volume of their first shipment;\4\ and (3) the
date of their first sale to an unaffiliated customer in the United
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Vinh Quang made no subsequent shipments to the United
States, while Ngoc Thai made one subsequent shipment during the POR,
which the Department corroborated using data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP''). On page 2 of its submission, Anvifish
claimed no subsequent shipments to the United States after its first
sale; however, the CBP data indicates that there were subsequent
shipments made by Anvifish.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department conducted CBP database queries to confirm that Vinh
Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish's shipments of subject merchandise had
entered the United States for consumption and that liquidation of such
entries had been properly suspended for antidumping duties.
Initiation of New Shipper Reviews
A. Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR
351.214(d)(1), the Department finds that Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and
Anvifish's requests meet the threshold requirements for initiation of a
new shipper review for the shipment of certain frozen fish fillets from
Vietnam they produced and exported. See Memorandum to File from Cindy
Lai Robinson, Senior Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager,
Office 9, Initiaion of AD New Shipper Review: Certain Frozen Fish
Fillets from Vietnam (A-552-801), dated March 26, 2007.
B. South Vina
The Department finds that South Vina's original review request
dated
[[Page 15655]]
February 28, 2007, did not provide any required supporting documents
and therefore, it does not meet the threshold requirements for
initiation of a new shipper review for the shipment of certain frozen
fish fillets from Vietnam, pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) and
(II) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A) and
(B), and 351.214(b)(2)(iv). With respect to South Vina's submission on
March 9, 2007, the Department agrees with Petitioners that it was
submitted untimely for this semi-annual anniversary month because it
was received nine days after the deadline, February 28, 2007, which is
the last day of the semi-annual anniversary month. The Department
disagrees with South Vina's arguments that: (1) the new shipper
regulation does not require that the certification and accompanying
documentation be submitted with the original request; and (2) the
pertinent regulation merely requires that the request for review be
made ``within one year of the date referred to'' in paragraph 19 CFR
351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A). To the contrary, 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2) clearly
specifies the ``contents of request,'' which includes: (1) A
certification from the requester or its producer stating that no
subject merchandise was exported to the United States (``U.S.'') during
the POI; (2) a certification stating that since the initiation of the
investigation, the requester has never been affiliated with any
exporter or producer who exported subject merchandise to the U.S.
during the POI; (3) a certification stating no government control over
the requester's export activities in a nonmarket economy case; and (4)
information regarding the date of the requester's first entry or
shipment of subject merchandise, the volume of the first and all
subsequent shipments of subject merchandise to the U.S., and the date
of requester's first sale to an unaffiliated U.S. customer.
Furthermore, 19 CFR 351.214(a) points out that the purpose of the URAA
to establish a new shipper review procedure is to allow new shippers
the opportunity to attain their own individual dumping margin on an
expedited basis. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(d), the Department
is required to initiate the new shipper review within a month
immediately following the semi-annual anniversary month or the
anniversary month depending on the date of the request. Accordingly,
the Department must have all required supporting documents on the
record by the submission deadline in order to initiate a new shipper
review in a timely manner.
As noted above, on March 22, 2007, South Vina submitted a list of
cases where the Department sent supplemental questionnaires prior to
initiation and therefore, South Vina argues, the Department should
accept its March 9, 2007, supporting documentation and initiate a new
shipper review. However, in each case cited by South Vina, the
requestor included the documents required by section 351.214(b)(2) in
its original request, which South Vina did not include in its February
28, 2007, request. Because South Vina did not provide any of the
``contents of request'' in its original request, and its submission on
March 9, 2007, is untimely, the Department has determined that South
Vina's request does not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements
for initiation. Therefore, the Department has removed South Vina's
February 28, 2007, and its March 9, 2007, submissions from the record,
and rejected South Vina's new shipper review request, in accordance
with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of the Act, and 19 CFR
351.214.
The POR for the three new shipper reviews is August 1, 2006,
through January 31, 2007. See 19 CFR 351.214(g)(1)(ii)(A). The
Department intends to issue the preliminary results of these reviews no
later than 180 days from the date of initiation, and final results of
these reviews no later than 270 days from the date of initiation. See
section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. Interested parties requiring
access to proprietary information in this new shipper review should
submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective
order in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 351.306. This initiation
and notice are published in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i).
Dated: March 26, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-6063 Filed 3-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
