Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Final Partial Rescission of the Second Administrative Review, 12127-12137 [E8-4412]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 45 (Thursday, March 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12127-12137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-4412]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-552-802


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Final 
Partial Rescission of the Second Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (``the Department'') is conducting 
an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(``Vietnam''), covering the period of review (``POR'') of February 1, 
2006, through January 31, 2007. As discussed below, we preliminarily 
determine that sales have not been made below normal value (``NV'') 
with respect to certain exporters who participated fully and are 
entitled to a separate rate in this administrative review. If these 
preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will 
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for 
which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 6, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, 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) 482-6905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Background

    On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from 
Vietnam. See

[[Page 12128]]

Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 
and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005) (``VN 
Shrimp Order''). On February 2, 2007, the Department published a notice 
of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping 
duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam for the period 
February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 72 FR 5007 (February 2, 
2007).
    On February 28, 2007, we received requests to conduct 
administrative reviews of 92 companies from Petitioner,\1\ 84 companies 
from the Louisiana Shrimp Association (``LSA''), and requests by 
certain Vietnamese companies.\2\ See Notice of Initiation of 
Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the 
People's Republic of China 72 FR 17095 (April 6, 2007) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is the Petitioner.
    \2\ Certain companies were requested by both Petitioner and LSA, 
thus creating an overlap in the number of companies upon which an 
administrative review was requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 30, 2007, Petitioner withdrew its request for an 
administrative review with respect to 58 Vietnamese producers/
exporters.\3\ On April 6, 2007, the Department initiated an 
administrative review of 101 producers/exporters of subject merchandise 
from Vietnam.\4\ See Initiation Notice. However, after accounting for 
duplicates, the number of companies upon which we initiated is actually 
76 companies/groups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additionally, on July 5, 2007, LSA filed a timely withdrawal 
of its review requests with respect to Aquatic Products Trading 
Company, Kien Giang Sea Products Import - Export Company, Kisimex, 
Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd., and Viet Nhan Company. 
These four companies were also included in Petitioner's March 30, 
2007, withdrawal notice. As a result, no other active administrative 
requests remain on the record of this review for these four 
companies/groups.
    \4\ The Department inadvertently listed T.K. Co. as one of the 
initiated companies for review despite Petitioner's withdrawal of 
the sole review request for T.K. Co. Thus, although we stated 100 
companies would be initiated for review, we actually initiated upon 
101 individually named companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Respondent Selection

    On April 6, 2007, the Department sent a request for quantity and 
value (``Q&V'') information to all 76 companies/groups named in the 
Initiation Notice. Between April 16, 2007, and June 1, 2007, the 
Department received separate rate certifications from 47 companies/
groups, Q&V questionnaire responses from 51 companies/groups, and 
separate rate applications from 2 companies/groups.
    On May 2, May 7, May 22, and May 24, 2007, the Department issued 
follow-up letters to 44 companies/groups that did not submit either a 
separate rate certification or application, as appropriate, or a Q&V 
questionnaire response. On May 15 and May 21, 2007, the Department 
received responses from Viet Nhan and Bentre Aquaproduct Imports & 
Exports, respectively, indicating that they made no shipments of 
subject merchandise during the POR.
    On June 6, 2007, the Department issued a letter to all interested 
parties inviting comments regarding the Department's respondent 
selection methodology for this proceeding. On June 13, 2007, Petitioner 
and counsel for a number of Vietnamese companies\5\ (``Vietnam 
respondents'') provided comments on the Department's respondent 
selection methodology. On June 22, 2007, Petitioner provided additional 
comments with respect to the Department's respondent selection 
methodology. On June 26, 2007, Vietnam respondents filed comments 
rebutting Petitioner's June 22, 2007, supplemental comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Vietnam respondents are: Seaprodex Minh Hai; Cuu Long 
Seapro; Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliated 
Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.); Minh 
Phu Seafood Corporation; Minh Phu Seafood Corp.; Minh Qui Seafood 
Co., Ltd.; Minh Qui Seafood; Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.; Minh Phat 
Seafood.; Cofidec; Stapimex; Ngoc Sinh; Seaprimexco; Cafatex; 
Cadovimex; Vimex; Seaprodex Danang; Utxi; Nha Trang Seafoods; Nha 
Trang Fisco; Kisimex; Phu Cuong; Fimex; Incomfish; CP Livestock; 
Cataco; Thuan Phuoc; Grobest; Phuong Nam; Camimex; Minh Hai Jostoco; 
and Viet Foods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 5, 2007, LSA filed a timely withdrawal of its review 
requests with respect to Aquatic Products Trading Company, Kien Giang 
Sea Products Import - Export Company aka Kisimex, Song Huong ASC 
Import-Export Company Ltd., and Viet Nhan Company. Additionally, on 
July 5, 2007, several Vietnamese companies collectively filed a request 
to extend the 90-day deadline to withdraw administrative review 
requests. The July 5, 2007, deadline to withdraw administrative review 
requests was extended to July 10, 2007. Consequently, of the 76 
companies/group for which the Department initiated an administrative 
review, 72 companies/groups remained with active review requests. 
However, as noted above, the Department inadvertently included T.K. Co. 
in the Initiation Notice after Petitioner withdrew its request for 
review of T.K Co. Consequently, the Department is rescinding the review 
with respect to T.K. Co. See ``Final Partial Rescission of 
Administrative Review'' section below. Thus, 71 companies/groups remain 
with active review requests.
    On July 18, 2007, the Department issued its respondent selection 
memorandum stating that we selected Camimex and Minh Phu Group\6\ 
(``MPG'') as the two mandatory respondents (hereinafter 
``respondents'') because they were the two largest exporters, by 
volume, of the remaining companies. See Memorandum to Stephen J. 
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from 
James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, Re: 2006/2007 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Respondents (``Respondent 
Selection Memo''). Additionally, on July 18, 2007, the Department 
issued a memorandum discussing the proper treatment of the companies 
upon which we initiated a review, but were unresponsive to the 
Department's requests for Q&V information. See Memorandum to Stephen J. 
Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration from James 
Doyle, Director, Office 9, Import Administration; Recommendation 
Memorandum Regarding Quantity and Value Questionnaire Responses and 
Lack Thereof: 2006/2007 Administrative Review on Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Unresponsive 
Companies Memo''), dated July 18, 2007. See the ``Vietnam-wide entity 
and Non-Responsive Companies'' section below for the Department's 
treatment of the non-responsive companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Minh Phu Group includes the following companies: Minh Phu 
Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliated Minh Qui Seafood 
Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.); Minh Phu Seafood 
Corporation; Minh Phu Seafood Corp.; Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd.; 
Minh Qui Seafood; Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.; Minh Phat Seafood.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questionnaires

    On July 20, 2007, the Department issued its non-market economy 
questionnaire to the two selected respondents, Camimex and MPG.
    Camimex and MPG responded to the Department's non-market economy 
questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between August 
2007 and January 2008. Additionally, between August and November 2007, 
Petitioner submitted

[[Page 12129]]

comments regarding Camimex's and MPG's questionnaire responses.

Extension of the Preliminary Results

    On October 26, 2007, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results of the instant review until February 28, 2008. See 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, 
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Extension of Time 
Limits for the Preliminary Results of the Second Administrative 
Reviews, 72 FR 60800 (October 26, 2007).

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,\7\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``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 (HTS 
subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in 
the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in 
any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or 
peeled (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and 
prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried 
shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS 
subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and 8) certain 
battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) that is 
produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to 
which a ``dusting'' layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 
purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh 
thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non-shrimp 
content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of 
the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being 
frozen; and 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after 
application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 
product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting 
above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, 
and par-fried.
    The products covered by this order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 
1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, 
but rather the written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (``Bac Lieu''), Khanh Loi 
Trading (``Khanh Loi''), Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd. 
(``Pataya''), Seaprodex, Bentre Aquaproduct Imports & Exports 
(``Bentre''), Hanoi Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (``Seaprodex 
Hanoi''), and Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company 
(``Camranh'') informed the Department that they did not export the 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In our 
examination of CBP entry data, we did not find any information 
inconsistent with these statements. See Memorandum to the File from 
Irene Gorelik, Analyst, Re: 2006/2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic 
of Vietnam: CBP Inquiry Regarding No Shipments, dated February 28, 
2008. Further, in response to our request for information relating to 
these claims, CBP did not provide any information that contradicted the 
respondents' claims. Therefore, because the record indicates that Bac 
Lieu, Khanh Loi, Pataya, Seaprodex, Bentre, Seaprodex Hanoi, and 
Camranh did not sell subject merchandise to the United States during 
the POR, we are preliminarily rescinding the instant administrative 
review with respect to Bac Lieu, Khanh Loi, Pataya, Seaprodex, Bentre, 
Seaprodex Hanoi, and Camranh. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

Final Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an 
administrative review if a party requesting a review withdraws the 
request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of 
initiation.\8\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and consistent 
with our practice, where the review requests were withdrawn within the 
90-day time limit, we have rescinded the review because no other 
parties requested a review of these companies. Because both Petitioner 
and LSA withdrew their requests for a review of Aquatic Products 
Trading Company, Kien Giang Sea Products Import - Export Company, 
Kisimex, Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd., and Viet Nhan 
Company within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of 
initiation and because no other interested party requested a review of 
these companies, we are rescinding the administrative review of Aquatic 
Products Trading Company, Kien Giang Sea Products Import - Export 
Company, Kisimex, Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd., and Viet 
Nhan Company. Additionally, as noted above, the Department 
inadvertently listed T.K. Co. as one of the initiated companies for

[[Page 12130]]

review, despite Petitioner's withdrawal of the sole review request for 
T.K. Co. Consequently, because Petitioner withdrew its request for a 
review of T.K. Co. within 90 days of the date of publication of the 
notice of initiation and because no other interested party requested a 
review of this company, we are rescinding the administrative review 
with respect to T.K. Co. Following the preliminary partial rescission 
and the final partial rescission totaling 12 companies/groups, the 
Department is left with 64 companies/groups with active review 
requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ As noted above, on March 30, 2007, Petitioner withdrew its 
request for an administrative review with respect to 58 producers/
exporters including Aquatic Products Trading Company, Kien Giang Sea 
Products Import - Export Company, Kisimex, Song Huong ASC Import-
Export Company Ltd., and Viet Nhan Company, in accordance with 19 
CFR 351.213(d)(1). In addition, as noted above, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1), LSA withdrew its request for an administrative review 
of Aquatic Products Trading Company, Kien Giang Sea Products Import 
- Export Company, Kisimex, Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company 
Ltd., and Viet Nhan Company on July 5, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duty Absorption

    On April 13, 2007, Petitioner requested that the Department 
determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed for U.S. sales 
of shrimp made during the POR by the respondents selected for review. 
Section 751(a)(4) of the Act of 1930, as amended (``the Act''), 
provides for the Department, if requested, to determine during an 
administrative review initiated two or four years after publication of 
the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by a foreign 
producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold in the United 
States through an affiliated importer. In this case, only MPG sold 
subject merchandise in the United States through an affiliated 
importer. Because the antidumping duty order underlying this review was 
issued in 2005, and this review was initiated in 2007, we are 
conducting a duty absorption inquiry for this segment of the 
proceeding.
    In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by 
the respondent, we presume the duties will be absorbed for those sales 
that have been made at less than NV. This presumption can be rebutted 
with evidence (e.g., an agreement between the affiliated importer and 
unaffiliated purchaser) that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the 
full duty ultimately assessed on the subject merchandise. See, e.g., 
Certain Stainless Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings From Taiwan: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Notice of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 39735, 39737 (July 11, 2005) 
(unchanged in final results). On August 23, 2007, the Department 
requested both MPG and Camimex to provide evidence to demonstrate that 
its unaffiliated U.S. purchasers will pay any antidumping duties 
ultimately assessed on entries of subject merchandise. On August 29, 
2007, Camimex rebutted the presumption of duty absorption by stating 
that it is not affiliated with the importers of record for its U.S. 
sales during the POR. See Camimex's Response to Duty Absorption Inquiry 
dated August 29, 2007. Additionally, because Camimex reported sales of 
subject merchandise on an export price (``EP'') basis, the Department 
did not conduct a duty absorption investigation of Camimex's sales to 
the United States during the POR.
    On August 29, 2007, MPG filed a response rebutting the duty-
absorption presumption with company-specific quantitative evidence that 
its unaffiliated U.S. purchasers will pay the full duty ultimately 
assessed on the subject merchandise. The quantitative evidence included 
invoices and financial statements on the record showing that MPG did 
not absorb duties during the POR. We conclude that this information 
sufficiently demonstrates that the unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States will ultimately pay the assessed duties. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that antidumping duties have not been absorbed by 
MPG on U.S. sales made through its affiliated importer. See Minh Phu 
Group's Response to Duty Absorption Inquiry dated August 29, 2007; see 
also MPG's Section A questionnaire response dated August 20, 2007, at 
Exhibits 8 and 20.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values

    On August 3, 2007, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
requesting comments on surrogate country selection and information 
pertaining to valuing factors of production. On September 7, 2007, 
Petitioner submitted a request to extend the deadline of October 5, 
2007, for the submission of surrogate country and factor valuation 
comments. On September 17, 2007, the Department extended the deadline 
to submit surrogate country and factor valuation comments until October 
26, 2007. Camimex, MPG and Petitioner submitted surrogate country 
comments and surrogate value data on October 26, 2007.
    On January 10, 2008, Camimex and MPG filed comments opposing 
Petitioner's request for the Department to select India as the 
surrogate country in this proceeding rather than Bangladesh, which the 
Department selected as the surrogate country in the underlying 
investigation, first administrative review, and new shipper review. On 
January 23, 2008, Petitioner submitted further comments reiterating its 
argument for India to serve as the surrogate country in this 
proceeding. On February 8, 2008, Respondents submitted additional 
comments in rebuttal to Petitioner's January 23, 2008 comments. For a 
detailed account of the Respondents' and Petitioner's comments as well 
as the Department's surrogate country selection, please see the 
``Surrogate Country'' section below.

Use of Facts Available

    Section 776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an interested 
party: (A) withholds information that has been requested by the 
Department; (B) fails to provide such information in a timely manner or 
in the form or manner requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) and (e) 
of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under the 
antidumping statute; or (D) provides such information but the 
information cannot be verified, the Department shall, subject to 
subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise available in reaching 
the applicable determination.
    Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides that if an interested party 
``promptly after receiving a request from {the Department{time}  for 
information, notifies {the Department{time}  that such party is unable 
to submit the information requested in the requested form and manner, 
together with a full explanation and suggested alternative form in 
which such party is able to submit the information,'' the Department 
may modify the requirements to avoid imposing an unreasonable burden on 
that party.
    Section 782(d) of the Act provides that, if the Department 
determines that a response to a request for information does not comply 
with the request, the Department will inform the person submitting the 
response of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent 
practicable, provide that person the opportunity to remedy or explain 
the deficiency. If that person submits further information that 
continues to be unsatisfactory, or this information is not submitted 
within the applicable time limits, the Department may, subject to 
section 782(e), disregard all or part of the original and subsequent 
responses, as appropriate.
    Section 782(e) of the Act states that the Department shall not 
decline to consider information deemed ``deficient'' under section 
782(d) if: (1) the information is submitted by the established 
deadline; (2) the information can be verified; (3) the information is 
not so incomplete that it cannot serve as a reliable basis for reaching 
the applicable determination; (4) the interested party has demonstrated 
that it acted to the best of its ability; and (5) the information can 
be used without undue difficulties.

[[Page 12131]]

    Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act states that if the 
Department ``finds that an interested party has failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with a request for 
information from the administering authority or the Commission, the 
administering authority or the Commission ..., in reaching the 
applicable determination under this title, may use an inference that is 
adverse to the interests of that party in selecting from among the 
facts otherwise available.'' See also Statement of Administrative 
Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. 
Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994).
    An adverse inference may include reliance on information derived 
from the Petition, the final determination in the investigation, any 
previous review, or any other information placed on the record. See 
section 776(b) of the Act.

Vietnam-wide Entity and Non-Responsive Companies

    As mentioned above, based on withdrawals and subsequent 
rescissions, the administrative review covers 64 companies/groups. Of 
those 64 companies/groups, only two selected respondents, MPG and 
Camimex, and 27 separate rate companies/groups\9\ chose to participate. 
The remaining 35\10\ companies did not respond to the Department's Q&V 
and separate rate questionnaires, or the follow-up letters sent by the 
Department. As these 35 companies/groups did not provide the 
information necessary to conduct a separate rate analysis, we consider 
these companies as part of the Vietnam-wide entity. Furthermore, at no 
point in the administrative review did any of these companies submit 
comments regarding their status in this proceeding. The Department's 
numerous attempts to contact these companies are documented in the 
Unresponsive Companies Memo dated July 18, 2007. As such, we find it 
appropriate to apply facts available to the Vietnam-wide entity in 
accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Act. Moreover, we 
find that because the Vietnam-wide entity did not respond to the 
Department's questionnaires and subsequent letters, it did not 
cooperate to the best of its ability and therefore, adverse facts 
available (``AFA'') is appropriate pursuant to section 776(b) of the 
Act. Therefore, we are applying an adverse inference to the Vietnam-
wide entity (including the 35 non-responsive companies/groups) in 
accordance with section 776(b) of the Act.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ These companies were: Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.; C.P. 
Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd.; Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company 
(``SEAPRIMEXCO''); Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing 
Joint Stock Company (``CADOVIMEX''); Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-
Export Company (Cadovimex); Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation 
(``Cafatex Corp.''); Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing 
Export Enterprise (Cafatex); Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import 
Export Corporation, or Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 (``CAMIMEX''); 
Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company 
(``CATACO''); Can Tho Agricultural Products aka CATACO; Coastal 
Fishery Development; Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation 
(Cofidec); Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec); C P 
Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd.; C P Livestock; Cuulong Seaproducts 
Company (``Cuu Long Seapro''); Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong 
Seapro); Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (``Seaprodex 
Danang'') and Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company; Frozen 
Seafoods Factory No. 32 aka thuan phuoc); Frozen Seafoods Fty aka 
above Thuan Phuoc; Grobest & I-Mei Industry Vietnam; Grobest; 
Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (``Incomfish''); Kim Anh 
Co., Ltd.; Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock 
Company; Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock 
Company (``Minh Hai Jostoco''); Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods 
Processing Company (``Seaprodex Minh Hai''); Minh Hai Sea Products 
Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co); Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.; 
Minh Phat Seafood; Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and 
affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., 
Ltd.); Minh Phu Seafood Corp.; Minh Phu Seafood Corporation; Minh 
Qui Seafood; Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd.; Ngoc Sinh Private 
Enterprise; Ngoc Sinh Seafoods; Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 
Company (``Nha Trang Fisco''); Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (``Nha 
Trang Seafoods''); Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export 
Co., Ltd. ; Phuong Nam Co. Ltd.; Phuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd.; Sao Ta 
Foods Joint Stock Company (``Fimex VN''); Soc Trang Aquatic Products 
and General Import Export Company (``Stampimex''); Thuan Phuoc 
Seafoods and Trading Corporation and frozen seafoods factory 32 and 
seafoods and foodstuff factory; UTXI Aquatic Products Processing 
Company; Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (``Viet Foods''); Viet Hai Seafoods 
Company Ltd. (``Vietnam Fish One Co. Ltd.''); Viet Hai Seafoods 
Company Ltd. (``Vietnam Fish One Co. Ltd.''); Vietnam Fish-One Co., 
Ltd.; Vinh Loi Import Export Company (``Vimexco''). Due to multiple 
name variations for companies upon which Petitioner and LSA 
requested an administrative review, the Department referred to these 
variations as companies/groups.
    \10\ These companies were: AAAS Logistics; Agrimex; American 
Container Line; An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock 
Company (Agifish); Angiang Agricultural Technology Service Company; 
Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports; Can Tho Seafood Exports; Cautre 
Enterprises; Dong Phuc Huynh; General Imports & Exports; Hacota; Hai 
Thuan Export Seaproduct Processing Co., Ltd.; Hai Viet; Hatrang 
Frozen Seaproduct Fty; Hoa Nam Marine Agricultural; Lamson Import-
Export Foodstuffs Corporation; Nha Trang Company Limited; Nha Trang 
Fisheries Co. Ltd.; Saigon Orchide; Sea Product; Sea Products 
Imports & Exports; Seafood Processing Imports-Exports; Sonacos; Song 
Huong ASC Joint Stock Company; Special Aquatic Products Joint Stock 
Company (``Seaspimex''); Tacvan Frozen Seafoods Processing Export 
Company; Thami Shipping & Airfreight; Thanh Long; Thien Ma Seafood; 
Tourism Material and Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City 
Branch); Truc An Company; Vietnam Northern Viking Technology Co. 
Ltd.; Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie Co ltd.; Vilfood Co.; 
Vita; V N Seafoods.
    \11\ See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished or Unfinished, 
With or Without Handles, From the People's Republic of China: 
Preliminary Results of Administrative Reviews and Preliminary 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 
11580 (March 8, 2006) (unchanged in final results); Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/ 
Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the People's Republic of 
China, 65 FR 50183, 50184 (August 17, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As AFA, we are applying the highest rate from any segment of this 
proceeding which in this case is the rate assigned to the Vietnam-wide 
entity in the LTFV investigation. Section 776(c) of the Act requires 
that the Department corroborate, to the extent practicable, secondary 
information used as facts available. Secondary information is defined 
as ``information derived from the petition that gave rise to the 
investigation or review, the final determination concerning the subject 
merchandise, or any previous review under section 751 concerning the 
subject merchandise.'' See SAA at 870 and 19 CFR 351.308(d).
    The SAA further provides that the term ``corroborate'' means that 
the Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus, to corroborate 
secondary information, the Department will, to the extent practicable, 
examine the reliability and relevance of the information used. The AFA 
rate we are applying for the current review of frozen warmwater shrimp 
was corroborated in the investigation. See VN Shrimp Order, 70 FR 5152 
(February 1, 2005). No information has been presented in the current 
review that calls into question the reliability of the information used 
for this AFA rate. Thus, the Department finds that the information is 
reliable.
    With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the 
Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to 
determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where 
circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as 
AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an 
appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: 
Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 
(February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in 
that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to 
facts available) because the margin was based on another company's 
uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high 
margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin

[[Page 12132]]

that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 
F.3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin 
that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual 
circumstances are present with respect to the rate being used here. 
Moreover, the rate selected (i.e., 25.76 percent) is the rate currently 
applicable to the Vietnam-wide entity. The Department assumes that if 
an uncooperative respondent could have demonstrated a lower rate, it 
would have cooperated. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 
F2d 1185 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, Inc. v. United 
States, 24 CIT 841 (2000) (respondents should not benefit from failure 
to cooperate). As there is no information on the record of this review 
that demonstrates that this rate is not appropriate to use as AFA in 
the current review, we determine that this rate has relevance.
    As this rate is both reliable and relevant, we determine that it 
has probative value, and is thus in accordance with section 776(c)'s 
requirement that secondary information be corroborated to the extent 
practicable (i.e., that it have probative value).

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving Vietnam, 
Vietnam has been treated as a non-market economy (``NME'') country. In 
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination 
that a foreign country is an NME country shall remain in effect until 
revoked by the administering authority. See Brake Rotors From the 
People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 
2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 
New Shipper Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the 
parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, 
we calculated NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which 
applies to NME countries.

Separate Rates Determination

    A designation as an NME remains in effect until it is revoked by 
the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. Accordingly, there 
is a rebuttable presumption that all companies within Vietnam are 
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single 
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's standard policy to assign 
all exporters of the merchandise subject to review in NME countries a 
single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate an absence 
of government control, both in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 
with respect to exports. To establish whether a company is sufficiently 
independent to be entitled to a separate, company-specific rate, the 
Department analyzes each exporting entity in an NME country under the 
test established in the Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 
Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 
6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as amplified by the Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from 
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (``Silicon 
Carbide'').
    One separate rate company, Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited, reported 
that it is wholly owned by individuals or companies located in a market 
economy in its separate-rate application. Therefore, because it is 
wholly foreign-owned, and we have no evidence indicating that its 
export activities are under the control of the Vietnamese government, a 
separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether this 
company is independent from government control. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 
from the People's Republic of China, 64 FR 71104-05 (December 20, 1999) 
(where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for 
a separate rate). Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate 
rate to Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited.
A. Absence of De Jure Control
    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining whether an individual company may be granted a separate 
rate: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an 
individual exporter's business and export licenses; and (2) any 
legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies.
    Although the Department has previously assigned a separate rate to 
all of the companies eligible for a separate rate in the instant 
proceeding, it is the Department's policy to evaluate separate rates 
questionnaire responses each time a respondent makes a separate rates 
claim, regardless of whether the respondent received a separate rate in 
the past. See Manganese Metal from the People's Republic of China, 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998).
    In this review, MPG and Camimex, and the 27 participating separate 
rate companies/groups submitted complete responses to the separate 
rates section of the Department's NME questionnaire. The evidence 
submitted by these companies includes government laws and regulations 
on corporate ownership, business licenses, and narrative information 
regarding the companies' operations and selection of management. The 
evidence provided by these companies supports a finding of a de jure 
absence of government control over their export activities. We have no 
information in this proceeding that would cause us to reconsider this 
determination. Thus, we believe that the evidence on the record 
supports a preliminary finding of an absence of de jure government 
control based on: (1) an absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the exporter's business license; and (2) the legal authority on 
the record decentralizing control over the respondents.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ This preliminary finding applies to (1) the two selected 
respondents of this administrative review: MPG and Camimex; and (2) 
the non-selected respondents of this administrative review seeking a 
separate rate: C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co., Ltd.; Ca Mau Seafood 
Joint Stock Company; Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing 
Joint-Stock Company; Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation; Can 
Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import and Export Company; 
Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation; Cuulong Seaproducts 
Company; Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation; Thuan Phuoc 
Seafoods and Trading Corporation; Grobest and I-Mei Industrial 
Vietnam Co., Ltd.; Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation; Kim 
Anh Company Limited; Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafoods Processing 
Joint Stock Company; Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods Processing 
Company; Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise; Nha Trang Fisheries Joint 
Stock Company; Nha Trang Seaproduct Company; Phu Cuong Seafood 
Processing & Import-Export Co., Ltd.; Phuong Nam Co., Ltd.; Sao Ta 
Foods Joint Stock Company; Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company; 
UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation; Viet Foods Co., Ltd.; 
Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd.; and Vinh Loi Import Export Company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Absence of De Facto Control
    The absence of de facto government control over exports is based on 
whether the Respondent: (1) sets its own export prices independent of 
the government and other exporters; (2) retains the proceeds from its 
export sales and makes independent decisions regarding the disposition 
of profits or financing of losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 
and sign contracts and other agreements; and (4) has autonomy from the 
government regarding the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide, 
59 FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; see also Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from 
the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995).
    In their questionnaire responses, MPG, Camimex, and the separate 
rate companies submitted evidence indicating an absence of de facto

[[Page 12133]]

government control over their export activities. Specifically, this 
evidence indicates that: (1) each company sets its own export prices 
independent of the government and without the approval of a government 
authority; (2) each company retains the proceeds from its sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding the disposition of profits or 
financing of losses; (3) each company has a general manager, branch 
manager or division manager with the authority to negotiate and bind 
the company in an agreement; (4) the general manager is selected by the 
board of directors or company employees, and the general manager 
appoints the deputy managers and the manager of each department; and 
(5) there is no restriction on any of the companies use of export 
revenues. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that MPG, 
Camimex, and the separate rate companies have established prima facie 
that they qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by 
Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This preliminary finding applies to the same companies 
listed in footnote 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Separate Rate Calculation

    Based on timely requests from individual exporters and petitioners, 
the Department originally initiated this review with respect to 76 
companies/groups. During the course of the review, multiple requests 
for review were withdrawn; however, the Department employed a limited 
examination methodology, as it did not have the resources to examine 
all companies for which a review request was made. As stated 
previously, the Department selected two exporters, MPG and Camimex, as 
mandatory respondents in this review. Twenty-seven additional companies 
submitted timely information as requested by the Department and remain 
subject to review as cooperative separate rate respondents.
    The Department must also assign a rate to the remaining 27 
cooperative separate rate respondents not selected for individual 
examination. We note that the statute and the Department's regulations 
do not directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to 
individual companies not selected for examination where the Department 
limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 
777(A)(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in this regard, in 
cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the 
largest volumes of trade, has been to weight-average the rates for the 
selected companies excluding zero and de minimis rates and rates based 
entirely on AFA. However, in the instant review, we have calculated de 
minimis company-specific dumping margins for MPG and Camimex, and 
assigned the 27 separate rate respondents a dumping margin equal to the 
weighted average of the dumping margins calculated for MPG and Camimex 
pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. See ``Preliminary Results 
of the Review'' section below for additional detail regarding the 
Department's methodology to calculate the weighted average of the 
dumping margins for the separate rate companies.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department is investigating imports from an NME country, 
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most 
circumstances, on the NME producer's factors of production (``FOPs''), 
valued in a surrogate market economy country or countries considered to 
be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) 
of the Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the 
extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market 
economy countries that are: (1) at a level of economic development 
comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of 
comparable merchandise. The sources of the surrogate factor values are 
discussed under the ``Normal Value'' section below and in Memorandum to 
the File through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 from Irene 
Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Office 9: Second Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary 
Results, dated February 28, 2008 (``Factor Valuation Memo'').
    The Department determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri 
Lanka, and Indonesia are countries comparable to Vietnam in terms of 
economic development.\14\ Moreover, it is the Department's practice to 
select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and 
reliability of data from the countries. See Department Policy Bulletin 
No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection Process (March 
1, 2004). In this case, we find that the information on the record 
shows that Bangladesh is the appropriate surrogate country because 
Bangladesh is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to 
section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of comparable 
merchandise, and has reliable, publicly available data representing a 
broad-market average. See Memorandum to the File, through James C. 
Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, Import Administration, from Irene 
Gorelik, Senior Case Analyst, Subject: Second Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of a Surrogate Country 
(February 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, 
to Jim Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: 
Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: 
Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated July 31, 2007, at 
Attachment I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results.

U.S. Price

A. Export Price
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the EP 
for sales to the United States for Camimex because the first sale to an 
unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and the use 
of constructed EP (``CEP'') was not otherwise warranted. Additionally, 
we calculated the EP for a portion of MPG's sales to the United States. 
We calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 
United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as 
appropriate, we deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated 
purchasers foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling. Each of 
these services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using 
an NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges 
on surrogate values. Additionally, for international freight provided 
by a market economy provider and paid in U.S. dollars, we used the 
actual cost per kilogram of the freight. See Factor Valuation Memo for 
details regarding the surrogate values for movement expenses.
B. Constructed Export Price
    For the majority of MPG's sales, we based U.S. price on CEP in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because sales were made on 
behalf of the Vietnam-based company by its U.S. affiliate to 
unaffiliated purchasers. For these sales, we based CEP on prices to the 
first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, 
we made deductions from the starting price (gross unit price) for 
foreign movement expenses, international movement

[[Page 12134]]

expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and appropriate selling adjustments, 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted 
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in 
the United States. We deducted, where appropriate, commissions, 
inventory carrying costs, credit expenses, and indirect selling 
expenses. Where foreign movement expenses, international movement 
expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by Vietnam service 
providers or paid for in Vietnamese Dong, we valued these services 
using surrogate values (see ``Factors of Production'' section below for 
further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by a market-
economy provider and paid for in market-economy currency, we used the 
reported expense. Due to the proprietary nature of certain adjustments 
to U.S. price, for a detailed description of all adjustments made to 
U.S. price for MPG, see Memorandum to the File, through Alex 
Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, Senior 
Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Minh Phu Group, dated February 28, 2008.

Normal Value

1. Methodology
    Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using a FOP methodology if the merchandise is exported 
from an NME and the information does not permit the calculation of NV 
using home-market prices, third-country prices, or constructed value 
under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases NV on the FOPs 
because the presence of government controls on various aspects of NMEs 
renders price comparisons and the calculation of production costs 
invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
2. Factor Valuations
    In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV 
based on FOPs reported by respondents for the POR, except as noted 
above. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available Bangladeshi surrogate values. 
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality, 
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we 
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered 
prices. Specifically, we added to Bangladeshi import surrogate values a 
surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from 
the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the distance from 
the nearest seaport to the factory of production where appropriate. 
This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit's decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 
1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not use Bangladeshi 
Import Statistics, we calculated freight based on the reported distance 
from the supplier to the factory.
    With regard to surrogate values and the market-economy input 
values, we have disregarded prices that we have reason to believe or 
suspect may be subsidized. We have reason to believe or suspect that 
prices of inputs from Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India may 
have been subsidized. We have found in other proceedings that these 
countries maintain broadly available, non-industry-specific export 
subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable to infer that all exports to 
all markets from these countries may be subsidized. See Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television 
Receivers From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 
2004) (``CTVs from the PRC''), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 7; see also Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel 
Plate from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 
(March 15, 2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 
Comment 4. The legislative history provides that in making its 
determination as to whether input values may be subsidized, the 
Department is not required to conduct a formal investigation, rather, 
Congress directed the Department to base its decision on information 
that is available to it at the time it makes its determination. See 
H.R. Rep. 100-576 at 590 (1988).
    Therefore, based on the information currently available, we have 
not used prices from these countries either in calculating the 
Bangladeshi import-based surrogate values or in calculating market-
economy input values. In instances where a market-economy input was 
obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used 
Bangladeshi import-based surrogate values to value the input. To value 
the main input, head-on, shell-on shrimp, the Department used data 
contained in a study of the Bangladeshi shrimp industry published by 
the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific, an 
intergovernmental organization affiliated with the UN's Food and 
Agriculture Organization.\15\ The Department used United Nations 
ComTrade Statistics, provided by the United Nations Department of 
Economic and Social Affairs' Statistics Division, as its primary source 
of Bangladeshi surrogate value data.\16\ The data represents cumulative 
values for the calendar year 2004, for inputs classified by the 
Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System number. For each 
input value, we used the average value per unit for that input imported 
into Bangladesh from all countries that the Department has not 
previously determined to be NME countries. Import statistics from 
countries that the Department has determined to be countries which 
subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, Korea, Thailand, and India) and 
imports from unspecified countries also were excluded in the 
calculation of the average value. See CTVs from the PRC, 69 FR 20594 
(April 16, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For a detailed explanation of the Department's valuation of 
shrimp, see Factor Valuation Memo.
    \16\ This can be accessed online at: https://www.unstats.un.org/
unsd/comtrade/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the Department's practice to calculate price index adjustors 
to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate values that are not 
contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index (``WPI'') 
for the subject country. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: 
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of 
China, 69 FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). However, in this case, a WPI was not 
available for Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly available 
information contemporaneous with the POI with which to value factors 
could not be obtained, surrogate values were adjusted using the 
Consumer Price Index rate for Bangladesh, or the WPI for India or 
Indonesia (for certain surrogate values where Bangladeshi data could 
not be obtained), as published in the International Financial 
Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.
    Certain surrogate values were calculated using data from the 2004 
Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh, published by the Bangladesh Bureau 
of Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of Planning. The information 
represents

[[Page 12135]]

cumulative values for the period of 2004. Certain other Bangladeshi 
sources were used as well. See Factor Valuation Memo. The unit values 
were initially calculated in takas/unit.
    Bangladeshi and other surrogate values denominated in foreign 
currencies were converted to USD using the applicable average exchange 
rate based on exchange rate data from the Department's website.
    To value packing materials, we used UN ComTrade data as the primary 
source of Bangladeshi surrogate value data.
    To value factory overhead, Selling, General & Administrative 
expenses, and profit, we used the simple average of the 2005-2006 
financial statement of Apex Foods Limited and the 2005-2006 financial 
statement of Gemini Seafood Limited, both of which are Bangladeshi 
shrimp processors. See Factor Valuation Memo, at Exhibit 12.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    The Department has determined that the following preliminary 
dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2006, through January 
31, 2007:

              Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Weighted-Average Margin
           Manufacturer/Exporter                      (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minh Phu Group............................
Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Minh Phat             0.01 (de minimis)
 Seafood aka Minh Phu Seafood Export
 Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh
 Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat
 Seafood Co., Ltd.) aka Minh Phu Seafood
 Corp. aka Minh Phu Seafood Corporation
 aka Minh Qui Seafood aka Minh Qui Seafood
 Co., Ltd.................................
Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import                 0.00 (de minimis)
 Export Corporation, aka Camau Seafood
 Factory No. 4 (``CAMIMEX'')..............
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd................             0.01 (de minimis)
C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd., aka C P               0.01 (de minimis)
 Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd., aka C P
 Livestock................................
Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and                    0.01 (de minimis)
 Processing Joint Stock Company
 (``CADOVIMEX'') aka Cai Doi Vam Seafood
 Import-Export Company (Cadovimex)........
Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation                0.01 (de minimis)
 (``Cafatex Corp.'') aka Cantho Animal
 Fisheries Product Processing Export
 Enterprise (Cafatex).....................
Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product                0.01 (de minimis)
 Import Export Company (``CATACO'') aka
 Can Tho Agricultural Products aka
 CATACO\17\...............................
Coastal Fishery Development aka Coastal                0.01 (de minimis)
 Fisheries Development Corporation
 (Cofidec) aka Coastal Fisheries
 Development Corporation (Cofidec)........
Cuulong Seaproducts Company (``Cuu Long                0.01 (de minimis)
 Seapro'') aka Cuu Long Seaproducts
 Limited (Cuulong Seapro) 2...............
Danang Seaproducts Import Export                       0.01 (de minimis)
 Corporation (``Seaprodex Danang'') aka
 Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export
 Company..................................
Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32, aka Frozen             0.01 (de minimis)
 Seafoods Fty, aka Thuan Phuoc, aka Thuan
 Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation,
 aka Frozen Seafoods Factory 32, aka
 Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory...........
Grobest & I-Mei Industry Vietnam, aka                  0.01 (de minimis)
 Grobest..................................
Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation              0.01 (de minimis)
 (``Incomfish'')..........................
Kim Anh Co., Ltd..........................             0.01 (de minimis)
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing              0.01 (de minimis)
 Joint Stock Company, aka Minh Hai Export
 Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock
 Company (``Minh Hai Jostoco'')...........
Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing               0.01 (de minimis)
 Company (``Seaprodex Minh Hai'').........
Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export                    0.01 (de minimis)
 Company (Seaprimex Co) , aka Ca Mau
 Seafood Joint Stock Company
 (``SEAPRIMEXCO'')........................
Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise..............             0.01 (de minimis)
Ngoc Sinh Seafoods........................             0.01 (de minimis)
Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company                0.01 (de minimis)
 (``Nha Trang Fisco'')....................
Nha Trang Seaproduct Company ( Nha Trang               0.01 (de minimis)
 Seafoods'')..............................
Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-               0.01 (de minimis)
 Export Co., Ltd..........................
Phuong Nam Co. Ltd., aka Phuong Nam                    0.01 (de minimis)
 Seafood Co. Ltd..........................
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (``Fimex              0.01 (de minimis)
 VN'')....................................
Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General                 0.01 (de minimis)
 Import Export Company (``Stampimex'')....
UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company..             0.01 (de minimis)
Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (``Viet Foods'').....             0.01 (de minimis)
Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (``Vietnam              0.01 (de minimis)
 Fish One Co. Ltd.'') aka Vietnam Fish-One
 Co., Ltd.................................
Vinh Loi Import Export Company                         0.01 (de minimis)
 (``Vimexco'')............................
Vietnam-Wide Rate\18\.....................                         25.76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The separate rate granted to Cataco is limited to only Cataco's
  exports of subject merchandise during the POR. Cataco's separate rate
  does not apply to Cantho Import-Export Seafood Joint Stock Company,
  aka Caseamex. For more discussion, see Memorandum to the File from
  Irene Gorelik, Analyst, re; 2006/2007 Antidumping Duty Administrative
  Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic
  of Vietnam; Cataco's Separate Rate, dated February 28, 2008.
\18\ The Vietnam-Wide entity includes the companies listed in footnote
  10 above.

    While the Department has, for these preliminary results, applied 
the weighted-average rates calculated for the two mandatory 
respondents, Camimex and MPG, to the companies not individually 
examined,\19\ we invite

[[Page 12136]]

comments from interested parties regarding the methodology to be used 
to determine the rate for non-examined companies. Specifically, we 
invite interested parties to comment on the rate to be applied to the 
non-examined companies, considering, but not limited to, the following 
factors: (a) The Department has limited its examination of respondents 
pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, (b) section 735(c)(5) 
provides that, with some exceptions, the all-others rate in an 
investigation is to be calculated excluding any margins that are zero, 
de minimis or based entirely on facts available, and (c) the SAA states