Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 52065-52070 [E7-18010]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer–specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted– average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are de minimis or determined entirely on AFA. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer–specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of shrimp from Brazil entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; 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, or the 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 will continue to be 7.05 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these final results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). Dated: September 5, 2007. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix Issues in Decision Memorandum General Issues 1. Offset for Productivity Losses from Viral Infection 2. Zeroing Negative Margins PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52065 Company–Specific Issues Compescal: 3. Calculation of Offset for Losses from Viral Infection 4. Calculation of Constructed Value Profit 5. Depreciation on Fixed Asset Revaluations 6. Treatment of Prime Quality Shrimp Aquatica: 7. Adjustment Methodology for Losses from Viral Infection 8. Aquatica’s Shrimp Cost Allocation Methodology 9. Changes in Inventories in Cost Calculation 10. Purchases from Affiliates 11. CV Profit and Selling Rates 12. Foreign Exchange Loss 13. Treatment of Broken Shrimp Valenca: ¸ 14. Adverse Facts Available Rate Assigned to Valenca da Bahia Maricultura S.A. 15. Corroboration of the Adverse Facts Available Rate Assigned to Valenca da Bahia Maricultura S.A. [FR Doc. E7–18009 Filed 9–11–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–549–822] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand. This review covers 24 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. We are rescinding the review with respect to five companies because these companies had no reportable shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted–average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 52066 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482–0656. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers 24 producers/ exporters.1 The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. (Good Luck Product); Pakfood Public Company Limited and it affiliated subsidiaries, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited, Chaopraya Cold Storage Company Limited, Okeanos Company Limited, and Takzin Samut Company Limited (collectively ‘‘Pakfood’’); and Thai I–Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai I–Mei). The respondents which were not selected for individual review are listed in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Thailand. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 10669 (Mar. 9, 2007) (Preliminary Results). On March 12, 2007, we received a quantity and value (Q&V) questionnaire response from Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Fortune Frozen Foods). Because Fortune Frozen Foods: 1) had previously submitted a timely Q&V questionnaire response that was rejected by the Department due to procedural deficiencies; and 2) provided an adequate explanation as to why the Department did not receive its re–filed Q&V questionnaire response in a timely manner, we accepted Fortune Frozen Foods’ Q&V questionnaire response. For further discussion, see the ‘‘Facts Available’’ section of this notice, below. In addition, on March 12 and 14, 2007, Anglo–Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd. (Anglo–Siam Seafoods) contacted the Department regarding the rate based on adverse facts available (AFA) that it was assigned in the preliminary results. Further on March 27, 2007, Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean), which also was assigned a rate 1 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department is rescinding the administrative review. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 based on AFA in the preliminary results, submitted a Q&V questionnaire response. However, because Anglo– Siam Seafoods and Gallant Ocean had not attempted to respond to the Department’s Q&V questionnaire prior to the deadline, we informed them that the deadline for submitting new factual information had passed and we would not accept their Q&V questionnaire responses. On April 2, 2007, we returned Gallant Ocean’s Q&V questionnaire response. For further discussion, see the ‘‘Facts Available’’ section of this notice, below. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results, as well as on the additional information noted above. In April 2007, we received case briefs from the petitioner (i.e., the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee), Fortune Frozen Foods, Gallant Ocean, Good Luck Product, Pakfood, and Thai I–Mei. In May 2007, we received rebuttal briefs from the petitioner, Pakfood, Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd. (Surapon Nichirei), and Thai I–Mei. The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild–caught (ocean harvested) or farm–raised (produced by aquaculture), head–on or head–off, shell–on or peeled, tail–on or tail–off,2 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild– caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 2 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food preparations, which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order. Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell–on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and, 8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp–based product: 1) that is produced from fresh (or thawed–from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non–shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and, 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp–based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par–fried. The products covered by this order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices Period of Review The POR is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. Partial Rescission of Review Eight of the producers/exporters that responded to the Department’s Q&V questionnaire stated that they had no shipments/entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. These companies are: Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd. (Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product), NR Instant Produce,3 Siam Intersea Co., Ltd. (Siam Intersea), Siam Ocean, Surapon Nichirei, Tep Kinsho, Thai Agri, and Thai World Imports and Exports.4 However, based on information obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), it appeared that these companies did, in fact, have shipments or entries of subject merchandise into the United States during the POR. As a result, we requested that seven of these companies explain the entries in question. We did not request information from Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product because, based on CBP information, we found that the merchandise (i.e., dried shrimp) was outside the scope of the order. In response to the Department’s solicitation and/or based on information from CBP, we continue to find that the entries at issue were not reportable transactions for four of the eight companies because they were either: 1) non–subject merchandise (i.e., dried shrimp); 2) a non–paid sample; or 3) reported by another company in its Q&V response based on knowledge of destination. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department’s practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product, Siam Ocean, Tep Kinsho, and Thai Agri. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65083 (Nov. 7, 2006). One of the remaining exporters/ producers, Siam Intersea, provided additional information to the Department indicating that it did, in fact, have a reportable transaction during the POR. We are not rescinding the administrative review with respect to this company and are assigning to it jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 3 We note that the response from this company indicated that its name is NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd. 4 We note that the responses from these companies indicated that their names are Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd., Thai Agri Foods Co., Ltd., and Thai World Imports and Exports Co., Ltd., respectively. VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 the weighted–average margin calculated for the companies selected for individual review because we find: 1) the discrepancy between the Q&V questionnaire response and the CBP data appeared to be an inadvertent oversight; 2) the quantity of the exports in question was so small that it would not have impacted our selection of respondents; and 3) the company has been responsive to our requests for information. In addition, the remaining two exporters/producers, NR Instant Produce and Surapon Nichirei, stated that they did not report the entries in question because they claimed that the entries were of non–subject merchandise. We preliminarily found that, because these companies’ merchandise entered into the United States as subject merchandise and there was insufficient evidence on the record to conclude otherwise, the merchandise in question was included within the scope of the order. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10672. Regarding NR Instant Produce, because we have received no further information demonstrating that the merchandise exported by this company is not subject to the order, we are continuing to assign it the weighted–average margin calculated for the companies selected for individual review. Regarding Surapon Nichirei, however, we have now determined that this merchandise constitutes a prepared meal based on information provided by Surapon Nichirei and is, therefore, excluded from the scope of the order. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the Department’s practice we are rescinding the review with respect to Surapon Nichirei. For further information, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo) accompanying this notice at Comment 4. Finally, the remaining exporter/ producer, Thai World Imports and Exports, failed to respond to the Department’s request for additional information and, thus, we find that it failed to act to the best of its ability. Therefore, we are not rescinding the administrative review with respect to Thai World Imports and Exports. For further information, see the ‘‘Facts Available’’ section of this notice. Facts Available In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following producer/exporters: Anglo– PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52067 Siam Seafoods, Fortune Frozen Foods, Gallant Ocean, Li–Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Li–Thai), Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd. (Queen Marine Foods), Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10673–74. Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply ‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, necessary information is not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the Department; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot be verified. In April 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond to the Department’s Q&V questionnaire for purposes of mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a response was April 28, 2006. Because numerous companies did not respond to this initial request for information, in May 2006 the Department issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity to submit a response to the Department’s Q&V questionnaire. However, the following companies failed to respond to the Department’s second request for Q&V data: Anglo–Siam Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li–Thai, Queen Marine Foods, and Smile Heart Foods. On January 31, 2007, the Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of the questionnaires to each of these companies. See the Memorandum to the File from Brianne Riker entitled, ‘‘Placing Delivery Information on the Record of the 2004–2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,’’ dated January 31, 2007. By failing to respond to the Department’s Q&V questionnaire, these companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because these companies did not respond to the Department’s questionnaire, the Department preliminarily found that the use of total facts available was warranted. Moreover, in May 2006, Thai World Imports and Exports claimed that it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Because we were unable to confirm the accuracy of this claim with CBP, we requested further information/ clarification from this producer/ exporter. However, Thai World Imports E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES 52068 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices and Exports failed to provide the requested information. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because Thai World Import and Export did not respond to the Department’s request for additional information, the Department also preliminarily found that the use of total facts available was warranted for it. By failing to respond to the Department’s requests, the above– mentioned companies withheld requested information and significantly impeded the proceeding. Therefore, as in the preliminary results, the Department finds that the use of total facts available for Anglo–Siam Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li–Thai, Queen Marine Foods, Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports is appropriate pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10673–74. We note that, while Anglo–Siam Seafoods and Gallant Ocean attempted to provide Q&V questionnaire responses after the preliminary results, we did not accept this information because it was untimely, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d)(1)(i). Therefore, we find that these companies were not responsive to the Department’s requests for information. For further discussion regarding Gallant Ocean, see the Decision Memo at Comment 8. Finally, we are reversing our preliminary decision to base the margin for Fortune Frozen Foods on total facts available. In the preliminary results, we assigned Fortune Frozen Foods a margin based on total facts available because the company failed to properly file its Q&V questionnaire response. On March 2, 2007, Fortune Frozen Foods contacted the Department regarding its rejected Q&V submission. Subsequently, on March 12, 2007, Fortune Frozen Foods submitted a Q&V questionnaire response, as well as a request that the Department consider it for purposes of the final results. In this submission, Fortune Frozen Foods explained to the Department that it re–filed its original Q&V questionnaire response before the deadline given by the Department; however, a company employee inadvertently sent the document via Thai first–class mail rather than an international courier service. Because: 1) Fortune Frozen Foods had previously submitted a timely Q&V questionnaire response that was rejected by the Department due to procedural deficiencies; 2) we find Fortune Frozen Foods’ explanation plausible; and 3) we now have a copy of Fortune Frozen Foods’ Q&V questionnaire response on the record of this administrative review, we are accepting Fortune Frozen Foods VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Jkt 211001 Q&V questionnaire response. Therefore, we will not base the margin for Fortune Frozen Foods on total facts available. Rather, we have now assigned Fortune Frozen Foods the weighted–average margin calculated for the companies selected for individual review. For further information, see the Decision Memo at Comment 7. Adverse Facts Available In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also, Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse inference.’’ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We find that Anglo–Siam Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li–Thai, Queen Marine Foods, Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports did not act to the best of their ability in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department’s requests for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting facts otherwise available. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382–83. Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as AFA information derived from: (1) the petition; (2) the final determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any other information placed on the record. The Department’s practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin is PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.’’ See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 23, 1998). In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 57.64 percent, which was the highest rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation of the less–than-fair– value (LTFV) investigation, to Anglo– Siam Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li–Thai, Queen Marine Foods, Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports. The Department finds that this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the AFA rule (i.e., we find that this rate is high enough to encourage participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with section 776(b) of the Act). We continue to find that the information upon which this margin is based has probative value and thus satisfies the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10673–74. For further information regarding corroboration of the AFA rate, see the Decision Memo at Comment 2. Cost of Production As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an investigation to determine whether Good Luck Product and Pakfood made home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices below their costs of production (COPs) within the meaning of section 773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these final results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results. We found 20 percent or more of each respondent’s sales of a given product during the reporting period were at prices less than the weighted–average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these below–cost sales were made in ‘‘substantial quantities’’ within an extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act. Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Good Luck E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices Product and Pakfood made below–cost sales not in the ordinary course of trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value (NV) pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act. Regarding Thai I–Mei, as discussed in the preliminary results, we based NV on constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act because there was no viable home or third country market. Therefore, we did not perform the cost test for this company. Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records Unit, room B–099, of the main Department building. In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/ . The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Because the margin calculations for Good Luck Product and Pakfood have not changed from the preliminary results, the preliminary calculations placed on the record of this administrative review are adopted as the final margin calculations. Final Results of Review We determine that the following weighted–average percentage margins exist for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006: Percent Margin jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Manufacturer/Exporter Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. ...... Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited/Chaopraya Cold Storage Company Limited/Okeanos Company Limited/Takzin Samut Company Limited ..................................... Thai I–Mei Frozen Foods Co.,Ltd. .................................... VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 10.75 Jkt 211001 4.29 2.58 Review–Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:5 Manufacturer/Exporter Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.4.31. Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd. Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. .................................. Inter–Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd. .......................................... Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand), Ltd. ................................ Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd. ...... Narong Seafood Co., Ltd. .......... NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd. ..... Pacific Queen Co., Ltd. .............. Piti Seafood Co., Ltd. ................. S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd. .. Siam Intersea Co., Ltd. .............. Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd. .......................................... SMP Food Product Co., Ltd. ...... Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd. .......................................... Percent Margin 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 4.31 AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: Manufacturer/Exporter Anglo–Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd. Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. .......................................... Li–Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd. .... Smile Heart Foods ...................... Thai World Imports and Exports Co., Ltd. .................................. Percent Margin 57.64 57.64 57.64 57.64 57.64 57.64 Assessment The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer–specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for certain of Pakfood’s U.S. sales and all of Thai I–Mei’s U.S. sales, because these companies reported the entered value, we have calculated importer–specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for which 5 This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA. PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 52069 entered value was reported. For certain of Pakfood’s U.S. sales without reported entered values and for all Good Luck Product’s sales, we have calculated importer–specific per–unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we have calculated importer–specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review excluding any which are de minimis or determined entirely on AFA. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. Cash Deposit Requirements Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of shrimp from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less than 0.50 E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1 52070 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 176 / Wednesday, September 12, 2007 / Notices percent, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the cash deposit will be zero; (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, or the 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 will continue to be 5.95 percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES General Issues 1. Offsets for Non–Dumped Sales 2. Corroboration of the Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Rate 3. The Placement of Species Within the Matching Hierarchy 4. Whether Entries Made by NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd. (NR Instant Produce) and Surapon Nicherei Foods Co., Ltd. 18:43 Sep 11, 2007 Company–Specific Issues 5. Final Rate Assigned to Gallant Ocean Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean) 6. Home Market Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade for Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. (Good Luck Product) 7. Classification of Certain of Good Luck Product’s Selling Expenses as Direct 8. Acceptance of Quantity and Value (Q&V) Data Submitted by Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Fortune Frozen Foods) 9. Verification Changes for Pakfood Public Company, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited, Takzin Samut Company Limited, Okeanos Company Limited, Chaopraya Cold Storage, and Singkara Company Limited (collectively ‘‘Pakfood’’) 10. Application of the Multinational Corporation (MNC) Provision to Thai I– Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai I–Mei) 11. Date–of-Sale Methodology for Thai I–Mei 12. Calculation of Warehousing Expenses for Thai I–Mei 13. Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset for Thai I–Mei 14. Calculation of CEP Profit for Thai I– Mei 15. Source of General and Administrative (G&A) Expense Data for Thai I–Mei 16. The G&A and Interest Expense Ratio Denominator for Thai I–Mei 17. Calculation of Constructed Value (CV) Profit for Thai I–Mei 18. Calculation of the Assessment Rate for Thai I–Mei [FR Doc. E7–18010 Filed 9–11–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–331–802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Ecuador. This review covers 23 producers/exporters of the subject merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. AGENCY: Appendix – Issues in Decision Memorandum VerDate Aug<31>2005 (Surapon Nichirei) Are Within the Scope of the Order Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted–average dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed below in the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of Review.’’ EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482–4136 and (202) 482–3773, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background This review covers 23 producers/ exporters. The respondents selected for individual review are OceanInvest, S.A. (OceanInvest) and Promarisco, S.A. (Promarisco). The respondents not selected for individual review are listed in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Ecuador. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 10658 (March 9, 2007) (Preliminary Results). We issued a supplemental questionnaire to Promarisco on March 9, 2007, in order to clarify certain reported data in the sales listings. We received a response to this supplemental questionnaire on March 19, 2007. We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results of review, as well as on the additional information noted above. In April and May 2007, we received case and rebuttal briefs from the petitioner (i.e., the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee) and the respondents (i.e., Promarisco and OceanInvest). The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild–caught (ocean harvested) or farm–raised (produced by aquaculture), head–on or head–off, E:\FR\FM\12SEN1.SGM 12SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52065-52070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-18010]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-822]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and 
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY:  Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 9, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the Department) 
published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from 
Thailand. This review covers 24 producers/exporters of the subject 
merchandise to the United States. The period of review (POR) is August 
4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. We are rescinding the review with 
respect to five companies because these companies had no reportable 
shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.
    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
certain changes in the margin calculations. Therefore, the final 
results differ from the preliminary results. The final weighted-average 
dumping margins for the reviewed firms are listed

[[Page 52066]]

below in the section entitled ``Final Results of Review.''

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 12, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina Itkin, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC, 20230; telephone (202) 482-0656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    This review covers 24 producers/exporters.\1\ The respondents which 
the Department selected for individual review are Good Luck Product 
Co., Ltd. (Good Luck Product); Pakfood Public Company Limited and it 
affiliated subsidiaries, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited, 
Chaopraya Cold Storage Company Limited, Okeanos Company Limited, and 
Takzin Samut Company Limited (collectively ``Pakfood''); and Thai I-Mei 
Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai I-Mei). The respondents which were not 
selected for individual review are listed in the ``Final Results of 
Review'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure does not include those companies for which the 
Department is rescinding the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 9, 2007, the Department published in the Federal Register 
the preliminary results of administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on shrimp from Thailand. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from Thailand: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 10669 (Mar. 9, 2007) 
(Preliminary Results).
    On March 12, 2007, we received a quantity and value (Q&V) 
questionnaire response from Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. 
(Fortune Frozen Foods). Because Fortune Frozen Foods: 1) had previously 
submitted a timely Q&V questionnaire response that was rejected by the 
Department due to procedural deficiencies; and 2) provided an adequate 
explanation as to why the Department did not receive its re-filed Q&V 
questionnaire response in a timely manner, we accepted Fortune Frozen 
Foods' Q&V questionnaire response. For further discussion, see the 
``Facts Available'' section of this notice, below.
    In addition, on March 12 and 14, 2007, Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., 
Ltd. (Anglo-Siam Seafoods) contacted the Department regarding the rate 
based on adverse facts available (AFA) that it was assigned in the 
preliminary results. Further on March 27, 2007, Gallant Ocean 
(Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean), which also was assigned a rate 
based on AFA in the preliminary results, submitted a Q&V questionnaire 
response. However, because Anglo-Siam Seafoods and Gallant Ocean had 
not attempted to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire prior to 
the deadline, we informed them that the deadline for submitting new 
factual information had passed and we would not accept their Q&V 
questionnaire responses. On April 2, 2007, we returned Gallant Ocean's 
Q&V questionnaire response. For further discussion, see the ``Facts 
Available'' section of this notice, below.
    We invited parties to comment on our preliminary results, as well 
as on the additional information noted above. In April 2007, we 
received case briefs from the petitioner (i.e., the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 
Action Committee), Fortune Frozen Foods, Gallant Ocean, Good Luck 
Product, Pakfood, and Thai I-Mei. In May 2007, we received rebuttal 
briefs from the petitioner, Pakfood, Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd. 
(Surapon Nichirei), and Thai I-Mei.
    The Department has conducted this administrative review in 
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 
Act).

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp 
and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised 
(produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, 
tail-on or tail-off,\2\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which includes 
the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the 
scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed 
from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in 
any count size.
    The products described above may be processed from any species of 
warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally 
classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 
examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but 
are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 
(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river 
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), 
redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp 
(Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern 
rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp 
(Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white 
shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 
indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food 
preparations, which are not ``prepared meals,'' that contain more than 
20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope 
of this order.
    Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 
subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in 
the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in 
any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or 
peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp 
and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried 
shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 
subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and, 8) certain 
battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) that is 
produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to 
which a ``dusting'' layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 
purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh 
thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non-shrimp 
content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of 
the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being 
frozen; and, 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after 
application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 
product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting 
above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, 
and par-fried.
    The products covered by this order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 
1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, 
but rather the written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

[[Page 52067]]

Period of Review

    The POR is August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006.

Partial Rescission of Review

    Eight of the producers/exporters that responded to the Department's 
Q&V questionnaire stated that they had no shipments/entries of subject 
merchandise into the United States during the POR. These companies are: 
Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd. (Bangkok Dehydrated Marine 
Product), NR Instant Produce,\3\ Siam Intersea Co., Ltd. (Siam 
Intersea), Siam Ocean, Surapon Nichirei, Tep Kinsho, Thai Agri, and 
Thai World Imports and Exports.\4\ However, based on information 
obtained from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), it appeared 
that these companies did, in fact, have shipments or entries of subject 
merchandise into the United States during the POR. As a result, we 
requested that seven of these companies explain the entries in 
question. We did not request information from Bangkok Dehydrated Marine 
Product because, based on CBP information, we found that the 
merchandise (i.e., dried shrimp) was outside the scope of the order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that the response from this company indicated that 
its name is NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd.
    \4\ We note that the responses from these companies indicated 
that their names are Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co., Ltd., Tep Kinsho 
Foods Co., Ltd., Thai Agri Foods Co., Ltd., and Thai World Imports 
and Exports Co., Ltd., respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the Department's solicitation and/or based on 
information from CBP, we continue to find that the entries at issue 
were not reportable transactions for four of the eight companies 
because they were either: 1) non-subject merchandise (i.e., dried 
shrimp); 2) a non-paid sample; or 3) reported by another company in its 
Q&V response based on knowledge of destination. Therefore, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and consistent with the 
Department's practice, we are rescinding our review with respect to 
Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product, Siam Ocean, Tep Kinsho, and Thai 
Agri. See, e.g., Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; 
Final Results and Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65083 (Nov. 7, 2006).
    One of the remaining exporters/producers, Siam Intersea, provided 
additional information to the Department indicating that it did, in 
fact, have a reportable transaction during the POR. We are not 
rescinding the administrative review with respect to this company and 
are assigning to it the weighted-average margin calculated for the 
companies selected for individual review because we find: 1) the 
discrepancy between the Q&V questionnaire response and the CBP data 
appeared to be an inadvertent oversight; 2) the quantity of the exports 
in question was so small that it would not have impacted our selection 
of respondents; and 3) the company has been responsive to our requests 
for information.
    In addition, the remaining two exporters/producers, NR Instant 
Produce and Surapon Nichirei, stated that they did not report the 
entries in question because they claimed that the entries were of non-
subject merchandise. We preliminarily found that, because these 
companies' merchandise entered into the United States as subject 
merchandise and there was insufficient evidence on the record to 
conclude otherwise, the merchandise in question was included within the 
scope of the order. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10672. Regarding 
NR Instant Produce, because we have received no further information 
demonstrating that the merchandise exported by this company is not 
subject to the order, we are continuing to assign it the weighted-
average margin calculated for the companies selected for individual 
review. Regarding Surapon Nichirei, however, we have now determined 
that this merchandise constitutes a prepared meal based on information 
provided by Surapon Nichirei and is, therefore, excluded from the scope 
of the order. Consequently, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), 
and consistent with the Department's practice we are rescinding the 
review with respect to Surapon Nichirei. For further information, see 
the Issues and Decision Memorandum (Decision Memo) accompanying this 
notice at Comment 4.
    Finally, the remaining exporter/producer, Thai World Imports and 
Exports, failed to respond to the Department's request for additional 
information and, thus, we find that it failed to act to the best of its 
ability. Therefore, we are not rescinding the administrative review 
with respect to Thai World Imports and Exports. For further 
information, see the ``Facts Available'' section of this notice.

Facts Available

    In the preliminary results, we determined that, in accordance with 
section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, the use of facts available was 
appropriate as the basis for the dumping margins for the following 
producer/exporters: Anglo-Siam Seafoods, Fortune Frozen Foods, Gallant 
Ocean, Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Li-Thai), Queen Marine Food Co., 
Ltd. (Queen Marine Foods), Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World Imports 
and Exports. See Preliminary Results, 72 FR at 10673-74.
    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is 
not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to 
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the 
form or manner requested by the Department; 3) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot 
be verified.
    In April 2006, the Department requested that all companies subject 
to review respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire for purposes of 
mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a 
response was April 28, 2006. Because numerous companies did not respond 
to this initial request for information, in May 2006 the Department 
issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity 
to submit a response to the Department's Q&V questionnaire. However, 
the following companies failed to respond to the Department's second 
request for Q&V data: Anglo-Siam Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, 
Queen Marine Foods, and Smile Heart Foods. On January 31, 2007, the 
Department placed documentation on the record confirming delivery of 
the questionnaires to each of these companies. See the Memorandum to 
the File from Brianne Riker entitled, ``Placing Delivery Information on 
the Record of the 2004-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,'' dated January 31, 
2007. By failing to respond to the Department's Q&V questionnaire, 
these companies withheld requested information and significantly 
impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) 
of the Act, because these companies did not respond to the Department's 
questionnaire, the Department preliminarily found that the use of total 
facts available was warranted.
    Moreover, in May 2006, Thai World Imports and Exports claimed that 
it made no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR. Because we were unable to confirm the accuracy of this claim 
with CBP, we requested further information/clarification from this 
producer/exporter. However, Thai World Imports

[[Page 52068]]

and Exports failed to provide the requested information. Thus, pursuant 
to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because Thai World Import 
and Export did not respond to the Department's request for additional 
information, the Department also preliminarily found that the use of 
total facts available was warranted for it.
    By failing to respond to the Department's requests, the above-
mentioned companies withheld requested information and significantly 
impeded the proceeding. Therefore, as in the preliminary results, the 
Department finds that the use of total facts available for Anglo-Siam 
Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen Marine Foods, Smile Heart 
Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports is appropriate pursuant to 
sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 72 
FR at 10673-74. We note that, while Anglo-Siam Seafoods and Gallant 
Ocean attempted to provide Q&V questionnaire responses after the 
preliminary results, we did not accept this information because it was 
untimely, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.302(d)(1)(i). Therefore, we find that 
these companies were not responsive to the Department's requests for 
information. For further discussion regarding Gallant Ocean, see the 
Decision Memo at Comment 8.
    Finally, we are reversing our preliminary decision to base the 
margin for Fortune Frozen Foods on total facts available. In the 
preliminary results, we assigned Fortune Frozen Foods a margin based on 
total facts available because the company failed to properly file its 
Q&V questionnaire response. On March 2, 2007, Fortune Frozen Foods 
contacted the Department regarding its rejected Q&V submission. 
Subsequently, on March 12, 2007, Fortune Frozen Foods submitted a Q&V 
questionnaire response, as well as a request that the Department 
consider it for purposes of the final results. In this submission, 
Fortune Frozen Foods explained to the Department that it re-filed its 
original Q&V questionnaire response before the deadline given by the 
Department; however, a company employee inadvertently sent the document 
via Thai first-class mail rather than an international courier service. 
Because: 1) Fortune Frozen Foods had previously submitted a timely Q&V 
questionnaire response that was rejected by the Department due to 
procedural deficiencies; 2) we find Fortune Frozen Foods' explanation 
plausible; and 3) we now have a copy of Fortune Frozen Foods' Q&V 
questionnaire response on the record of this administrative review, we 
are accepting Fortune Frozen Foods Q&V questionnaire response. 
Therefore, we will not base the margin for Fortune Frozen Foods on 
total facts available. Rather, we have now assigned Fortune Frozen 
Foods the weighted-average margin calculated for the companies selected 
for individual review. For further information, see the Decision Memo 
at Comment 7.

Adverse Facts Available

    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 
54025-26 (Sept. 13, 2005); see also, Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 
FR 55792, 55794-96 (Aug. 30, 2002). Adverse inferences are appropriate 
``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable result by 
failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See Statement 
of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 
H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). Furthermore, 
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997). See also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 
F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). We find that Anglo-Siam 
Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen Marine Foods, Smile Heart 
Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports did not act to the best of 
their ability in this proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) 
of the Act, because they failed to respond to the Department's requests 
for information. Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in 
selecting facts otherwise available. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1382-83.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
AFA information derived from: (1) the petition; (2) the final 
determination in the investigation; (3) any previous review; or (4) any 
other information placed on the record.
    The Department's practice, when selecting an AFA rate from among 
the possible sources of information, has been to ensure that the margin 
is sufficiently adverse ``as to effectuate the statutory purposes of 
the adverse facts available rule to induce respondents to provide the 
Department with complete and accurate information in a timely manner.'' 
See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil: Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances, 67 FR 55792, 55796 (Aug. 30, 2002); see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Static 
Random Access Memory Semiconductors from Taiwan, 63 FR 8909, 8932 (Feb. 
23, 1998).
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have assigned a rate of 57.64 percent, which was 
the highest rate alleged in the petition, as adjusted at the initiation 
of the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, to Anglo-Siam 
Seafoods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen Marine Foods, Smile Heart 
Foods, and Thai World Imports and Exports. The Department finds that 
this rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the AFA 
rule (i.e., we find that this rate is high enough to encourage 
participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with 
section 776(b) of the Act). We continue to find that the information 
upon which this margin is based has probative value and thus satisfies 
the requirements of section 776(c) of the Act. See Preliminary Results, 
72 FR at 10673-74. For further information regarding corroboration of 
the AFA rate, see the Decision Memo at Comment 2.

Cost of Production

    As discussed in the preliminary results, we conducted an 
investigation to determine whether Good Luck Product and Pakfood made 
home market sales of the foreign like product during the POR at prices 
below their costs of production (COPs) within the meaning of section 
773(b)(1) of the Act. We performed the cost test for these final 
results following the same methodology as in the Preliminary Results.
    We found 20 percent or more of each respondent's sales of a given 
product during the reporting period were at prices less than the 
weighted-average COP for this period. Thus, we determined that these 
below-cost sales were made in ``substantial quantities'' within an 
extended period of time and at prices which did not permit the recovery 
of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade. See sections 773(b)(2)(B) - (D) of the Act.
    Therefore, for purposes of these final results, we found that Good 
Luck

[[Page 52069]]

Product and Pakfood made below-cost sales not in the ordinary course of 
trade. Consequently, we disregarded these sales for each respondent and 
used the remaining sales as the basis for determining normal value (NV) 
pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    Regarding Thai I-Mei, as discussed in the preliminary results, we 
based NV on constructed value in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of 
the Act because there was no viable home or third country market. 
Therefore, we did not perform the cost test for this company.

Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this 
administrative review, and to which we have responded, are listed in 
the Appendix to this notice and addressed in the Decision Memo, which 
is adopted by this notice. Parties can find a complete discussion of 
all issues raised in this review and the corresponding recommendations 
in this public memorandum, which is on file in the Central Records 
Unit, room B-099, of the main Department building.
    In addition, a complete version of the Decision Memo can be 
accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/. The paper 
copy and electronic version of the Decision Memo are identical in 
content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made 
certain changes in the margin calculations. These changes are discussed 
in the relevant sections of the Decision Memo. Because the margin 
calculations for Good Luck Product and Pakfood have not changed from 
the preliminary results, the preliminary calculations placed on the 
record of this administrative review are adopted as the final margin 
calculations.

Final Results of Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average percentage margins 
exist for the period August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good Luck Product Co., Ltd..................................       10.75
Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific (Thailand)              4.29
 Company Limited/Chaopraya Cold Storage Company Limited/
 Okeanos Company Limited/Takzin Samut Company Limited.......
Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co.,Ltd.............................        2.58
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins 
calculated for those companies selected for individual review, 
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.4.31..........................
Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd..............................        4.31
Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd....................        4.31
Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd............................        4.31
Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand), Ltd......................        4.31
Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd...................................        4.31
Narong Seafood Co., Ltd.....................................        4.31
NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd.................................        4.31
Pacific Queen Co., Ltd......................................        4.31
Piti Seafood Co., Ltd.......................................        4.31
S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd................................        4.31
Siam Intersea Co., Ltd......................................        4.31
Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd........................        4.31
SMP Food Product Co., Ltd...................................        4.31
Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd.........................        4.31
------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd................................       57.64
Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd...........................       57.64
Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd...............................       57.64
Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd..................................       57.64
Smile Heart Foods...........................................       57.64
Thai World Imports and Exports Co., Ltd.....................       57.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Assessment

    The Department shall determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping 
duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue 
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
these final results of review.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.212(b)(1), for certain of Pakfood's U.S. sales and all of Thai I-
Mei's U.S. sales, because these companies reported the entered value, 
we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates 
based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales to the total entered value of the sales for 
which entered value was reported. For certain of Pakfood's U.S. sales 
without reported entered values and for all Good Luck Product's sales, 
we have calculated importer-specific per-unit duty assessment rates by 
aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the 
examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those 
sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, 
in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), 
we have calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the 
estimated entered value.
    For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual 
review, we have calculated an assessment rate based on the weighted 
average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected 
for individual review excluding any which are de minimis or determined 
entirely on AFA.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 
clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the 
POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for 
which the reviewed companies did not know their merchandise was 
destined for the United States. This clarification will also apply to 
POR entries of subject merchandise produced by companies for which we 
are rescinding the review based on certifications of no shipments, 
because these companies certified that they made no POR shipments of 
subject merchandise for which they had knowledge of U.S. destination. 
In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries 
at the ``All Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation if 
there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the 
transaction.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    Further, the following deposit requirements will be effective for 
all shipments of shrimp from Thailand entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rates for the reviewed 
companies will be the rates shown above, except if the rate is less 
than 0.50

[[Page 52070]]

percent, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), the 
cash deposit will be zero; (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, or the 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 will continue to be 5.95 percent, the ``All 
Others'' rate established in the LTFV investigation. These deposit 
requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their 
responsibility, under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2), to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.

Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to 
administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility 
concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under 
APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written 
notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to 
judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with 
the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
    We are issuing and publishing these results of review in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.

Appendix - Issues in Decision Memorandum

General Issues

1. Offsets for Non-Dumped Sales
2. Corroboration of the Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Rate
3. The Placement of Species Within the Matching Hierarchy
4. Whether Entries Made by NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd. (NR Instant 
Produce) and Surapon Nicherei Foods Co., Ltd. (Surapon Nichirei) Are 
Within the Scope of the Order

Company-Specific Issues

5. Final Rate Assigned to Gallant Ocean Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean)
6. Home Market Sales Outside the Ordinary Course of Trade for Good Luck 
Product Co., Ltd. (Good Luck Product)
7. Classification of Certain of Good Luck Product's Selling Expenses as 
Direct
8. Acceptance of Quantity and Value (Q&V) Data Submitted by Fortune 
Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Fortune Frozen Foods)
9. Verification Changes for Pakfood Public Company, Asia Pacific 
(Thailand) Company Limited, Takzin Samut Company Limited, Okeanos 
Company Limited, Chaopraya Cold Storage, and Singkara Company Limited 
(collectively ``Pakfood'')
10. Application of the Multinational Corporation (MNC) Provision to 
Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai I-Mei)
11. Date-of-Sale Methodology for Thai I-Mei
12. Calculation of Warehousing Expenses for Thai I-Mei
13. Constructed Export Price (CEP) Offset for Thai I-Mei
14. Calculation of CEP Profit for Thai I-Mei
15. Source of General and Administrative (G&A) Expense Data for Thai I-
Mei
16. The G&A and Interest Expense Ratio Denominator for Thai I-Mei
17. Calculation of Constructed Value (CV) Profit for Thai I-Mei
18. Calculation of the Assessment Rate for Thai I-Mei
[FR Doc. E7-18010 Filed 9-11-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S