Notice of Amended Final Results of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 47885-47887 [E8-19082]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices calculation program for the Final Results inadvertently used the quantities of the individual CEP sales, rather than the total quantity of all CEP sales that Anvifish’s affiliated U.S. customer made from the affected shipment. The specific calculation change to correct this ministerial error can be found in the ‘‘Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, Import Administration, from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, Subject: Amended Final Results Analysis for Anvifish Co., Ltd.,’’ (August 6, 2008) (‘‘Amended Final Results Analysis Memo’’). The Amended Final Results Analysis Memo is on file in the Central Records Unit, room 1117 at the Department’s headquarters. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), we are amending the Final Results of Anvifish’s new shipper review of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The revised final weighted–average dumping margin for Anvifish is as follows: entries of subject merchandise without regard to antidumping duties that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after June 30, 2008, and to grant a refund for any overcollection on such entries if the importer makes such a request pursuant to 19 USC 1520(a)(4). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). These amended final results are published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: August 6, 2008. David A. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–18948 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–552–801] Notice of Amended Final Results of Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM VIETNAM - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, DUMPING MARGINS Department of Commerce. On March 24, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal Anvifish Co., Ltd. .......... 0.00 % Register the final results of the third administrative review of the Cash Deposit Requirements antidumping duty order on certain This cash deposit rate will be effective frozen fish fillets from the Socialist retroactively on any entries made on or Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). See after June 30, 2008, for all shipments of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the the subject merchandise entered, or Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final withdrawn from warehouse, for Results of Antidumping Duty consumption as provided for by section Administrative Review and Partial 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject Rescission, 73 FR 15479 (March 24, merchandise produced and exported by 2008) (‘‘Final Results’’). The period of Anvifish, no cash deposit will be review (‘‘POR’’) covered August 1, 2005, required; (2) for subject merchandise through July 31, 2006. We are amending exported by Anvifish, but not our Final Results to correct ministerial manufactured by Anvifish, the cash errors made in the calculation of the deposit rate will continue to be the antidumping duty margins for of East Vietnam–wide rate (i.e., 63.88 percent); Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd. and (3) for subject merchandise (‘‘ESS’’), Can Tho Agricultural and manufactured by Anvifish, but exported Animal Products Import Export by any other party, the cash deposit rate Company (‘‘CATACO’’), and QVD Food will be the rate applicable to the Company (‘‘QVD’’) pursuant to section exporter. These cash deposit 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as requirement will remain in effect until amended (the ‘‘Act’’) and an order from further notice. the Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’). See Catfish Farmers of America v. Assessment United States, Consol Court No. 08– The Department intends to issue 00111, (CIT July 22, 2008) (‘‘CIT assessment instructions to CBP 15 days Order’’). after the publication date of these EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 2008. amended final results of review. Where an importer (or customer)-specific per– FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex unit rate is zero or de minimis, we will Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate 9, Import Administration, International mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES Manufacturer/Exporter VerDate Aug<31>2005 Weighted–Average Deposit Rate 19:03 Aug 14, 2008 Jkt 214001 SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 47885 Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3208. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On September 19, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the ‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 53527 (September 19, 2007) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On March 24, 2008, the Department published the Final Results in this administrative review. On March 24, 2008, ESS and the Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. catfish processors (‘‘Petitioners’’) filed timely allegations that the Department made ministerial errors in the Final Results. On March 25, 2008, QVD filed timely allegations that the Department made ministerial errors in the Final Results. On March 31, 2008, the Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments to QVD’s March 25, 2008, ministerial error allegations. Following the publication of the Final Results, parties appealed certain aspects of the Department’s Final Results with the CIT. Upon request by the Department, the CIT granted a consent motion for leave to (i) correct certain ministerial errors in calculation of the final antidumping duty margin in the Final Results, (ii) recalculate the antidumping margins accordingly, and (iii) issue and publish the amended final results on or before August 15, 2008. See CIT Order. Scope of Order The product covered by this order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius), and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’), which include fillets cut into strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM 15AUN1 47886 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly–flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone–in, crosssection cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly–flaps. The subject merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen ‘‘basa’’ and ‘‘tra’’ fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article codes 1604.19.40001, 1604.19.50002, 0305.59.40003, 0304.29.60334 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).5 This order covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Ministerial Errors A ministerial error is defined in section 751(h) of the Act and further clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as ‘‘an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.’’ mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES ESS After analyzing ESS’s single comment, we have determined, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that a ministerial error existed in the 1 See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1, 2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 2 See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1, 2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 3 See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Second Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (February 2, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007. 4 See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (January 30, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007. 5 Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these products were classifiable under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:03 Aug 14, 2008 Jkt 214001 calculation for ESS in the Final Results because the Department inadvertently failed to change the surrogate value for fish as stated in Comment 4 of the Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Subject: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Issues and Decision Memo’’). We are correcting this error for these amended results; however, the correction of this error does not change ESS’s final margin. For a detailed discussion of this ministerial error, as well as the Department’s analysis, see Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results of ESS dated April 18, 2008. CATACO We agree with the Petitioners that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we made a ministerial error, with regard to the margin assigned to CATACO. In the Final Results, we incorrectly stated that CATACO was included in the Vietnam– wide entity and was assigned a margin of 63.88 percent. However, in the Preliminary Results CATACO received an individual adverse facts available margin of 80.88 percent and, as no interested parties provided comments on CATACO’s margin in the case briefs, the individual adverse facts available margin for CATACO should have been unchanged and listed as 80.88 percent. QVD QVD alleged eight ministerial error allegations: (1) the Department incorrectly applied the international freight charges pursuant to comment 5D of the Issues and Decision Memo; (2) the Department incorrectly included the undepreciated balance of the surrogate company’s assets instead of the amount of annual depreciation corresponding to the financial year; (3) the Department did not exclude imports from ‘‘Other Asia, nes’’ in the surrogate value calculation for banding; (4) the Department did not correctly apply a revised gross unit price for certain verification findings; (5) the Department did not correctly exclude certain sales from the margin calculation based on verification findings; (6) the Department did not correctly apply the partial adverse facts available to QVD’s direct and indirect labor pursuant to comment PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 6A of the Issues and Decision Memo; (7) the Department incorrectly used a non– corrugated paperboard surrogate value for cartons despite QVD s statement that its cartons were of corrugated paperboard in its June 12, 2007, questionnaire response; and (8) the Department neglected to deflate the whole fish surrogate value. The Petitioners argue that the Department intended to value QVD’s cartons using the non–corrugated paperboard surrogate value as explained in Comment 6C of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. Therefore, the Department should not value QVD’s cartons using a corrugated paperboard surrogate value. The Petitioners also argue that QVD is incorrectly requesting that the Department deflate the fish surrogate value because this surrogate value is contemporaneous with the POR. We agree that seven of the eight allegations constitute inadvertent ministerial errors pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.224(e). We disagree with QVD’s allegation that the fish surrogate value should be deflated. Because the whole fish surrogate value source is from the financial statements of Gachihata Aquaculture Farms Ltd. covering the fiscal year period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 and the POR is August 1, 2006 through July 31, 2007, there is significant overlap between the periods and, therefore, the data are considered contemporaneous. We also disagree with Petitioners that the Department correctly valued cartons using a non– corrugated surrogate value. In its questionnaire response QVD indicated that it used corrugated paperboard. See QVD’s June 12, 2008, Questionnaire Response. As a result, we agree with QVD that the Department made a ministerial error in using a non– corrugated paperboard surrogate value for cartons pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.224(e). For a detailed discussion of the Department’s analysis, see Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results of QVD dated April 18, 2008. Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.224(e) and the CIT Order, we are amending the Final Results of the administrative review of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The final weighted–average dumping margins are as follows: E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM 15AUN1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices Constitution Avenue., NW., Washington, DC. Docket Number: 08–033. Applicant: Weighted–Average University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT Manufacturer/Exporter Margin (Percent) 06269–3136. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 Spirit ESS ............................... 0.00 TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, QVD .............................. 0.00 Czech Republic. Intended Use: See CATACO ....................... 80.88 notice at 73 FR 42549, July 22, 2008. Docket Number: 08–034 Applicant: Cash Deposit Requirements Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA In this case, the weighted–average 02115. Instrument: Electron Microscope, dumping margins for ESS and QVD did Model Tecnai G2 F20. Manufacturer: FEI not change as a result of correcting the Company, The Netherlands. Intended errors described above. Therefore, it is Use: See notice at 73 FR 42549, July 22, not necessary for the Department to 2008. amend the cash deposit instructions Comments: None received. Decision: already submitted to the U.S. Customs Approved. No instrument of equivalent and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) for ESS scientific value to the foreign and QVD. With respect to CATACO, instrument, for such purposes as these however, we will instruct CBP to collect instruments are intended to be used, antidumping duties for all shipments of was bing manufactured in the United the subject merchandise entered, or States at the time the instruments were withdrawn from warehouse, for ordered. Reasons: Each foreign consumption as provided for by section instrument is an electron microscope 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, based on these and is intended for research or scientific amended final results, retroactively educational uses requiring an electron effective to March 24, 2008, the date of microscope. We know of no electron publication of the Final Results. microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was Assessment being manufactured in the United States Because the Department is currently at the time of the order of each enjoined from liquidation of any entries instrument. of subject merchandise exported by ESS Dated: August 11, 2008. and QVD, will not issue liquidation Faye Robinson, instructions to CBP until the conclusion Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, of the litigation. CBP has already been Import Administration. instructed to liquidate CATACO’s [FR Doc. E8–18847 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] entries at the rate in effect at the time BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M of entry. These amended final results are published in accordance with sections DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM VIETNAM Dated: August 12, 2008. David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E8–19082 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES University of Connecticut, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscopes This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, and 19:03 Aug 14, 2008 Jkt 214001 [A–570–875] Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order on Non–Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: As a result of the determinations by the Department of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) and the International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) that revocation of the antidumping duty order on non–malleable cast iron pipe fittings (‘‘non–malleable pipe fittings’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department is publishing a notice of continuation for the antidumping duty order. AGENCY: International Trade Administration VerDate Aug<31>2005 International Trade Administration PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 EFFECTIVE DATE: 47887 August 15, 2008. Zev Primor or Juanita Chen, AD/CVD Operations, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4114 or (202) 482–1904, respectively. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: On March 3, 2008, the Department initiated and the ITC instituted sunset reviews of the antidumping duty order on non–malleable pipe fittings from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ‘‘Act’’). See Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 73 FR 11392 (March 3, 2008). As a result of its review, the Department determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order on non– malleable pipe fittings from the PRC would likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and, therefore, notified the ITC of the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail should the order be revoked. See Non–Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 39656 (July 10, 2008). On July 16, 2008, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, that revocation of the antidumping duty order on non–malleable pipe fittings from the PRC would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable future. See Non–Malleable Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic of China (Inv. No. 731–TA–990 (Review)), USITC Publication 4023 (July 2008) and 73 FR 45075 (August 1, 2008). Scope of the Order For purposes of this review, the products covered are finished and unfinished non–malleable cast iron pipe fittings with an inside diameter ranging from 1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether threaded or un–threaded, regardless of industry or proprietary specifications. The subject fittings include elbows, ells, tees, crosses, and reducers as well as flanged fittings. These pipe fittings are also known as ‘‘cast iron pipe fittings’’ or ‘‘gray iron pipe fittings.’’ These cast iron pipe fittings are normally produced to ASTM A–126 and ASME B.l6.4 specifications and are threaded to ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most building codes require that these E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM 15AUN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47885-47887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19082]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-801]


Notice of Amended Final Results of Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On March 24, 2008, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published in the Federal Register the final results of 
the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain frozen fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 
(``Vietnam''). See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review and Partial Rescission, 73 FR 15479 (March 24, 2008) (``Final 
Results''). The period of review (``POR'') covered August 1, 2005, 
through July 31, 2006. We are amending our Final Results to correct 
ministerial errors made in the calculation of the antidumping duty 
margins for of East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd. (``ESS''), Can 
Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company 
(``CATACO''), and QVD Food Company (``QVD'') pursuant to section 751(h) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the ``Act'') and an order from 
the Court of International Trade (``CIT''). See Catfish Farmers of 
America v. United States, Consol Court No. 08-00111, (CIT July 22, 
2008) (``CIT Order'').

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Villanueva, 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) 482-3208.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 19, 2007, the Department of Commerce (the 
``Department'') published in the Federal Register the preliminary 
results of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. See Certain Frozen Fish 
Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 53527 (September 19, 2007) (``Preliminary 
Results''). On March 24, 2008, the Department published the Final 
Results in this administrative review. On March 24, 2008, ESS and the 
Catfish Farmers of America and individual U.S. catfish processors 
(``Petitioners'') filed timely allegations that the Department made 
ministerial errors in the Final Results. On March 25, 2008, QVD filed 
timely allegations that the Department made ministerial errors in the 
Final Results. On March 31, 2008, the Petitioners submitted rebuttal 
comments to QVD's March 25, 2008, ministerial error allegations.
    Following the publication of the Final Results, parties appealed 
certain aspects of the Department's Final Results with the CIT. Upon 
request by the Department, the CIT granted a consent motion for leave 
to (i) correct certain ministerial errors in calculation of the final 
antidumping duty margin in the Final Results, (ii) recalculate the 
antidumping margins accordingly, and (iii) issue and publish the 
amended final results on or before August 15, 2008. See CIT Order.

Scope of Order

    The product covered by this order is frozen fish fillets, including 
regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not 
breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius 
Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius), and Pangasius 
Micronemus. Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The 
fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the 
belly flap intact (``regular'' fillets), boneless fillets with the 
belly flap removed (``shank'' fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into 
strips (``fillet strips/finger''), which include fillets cut into 
strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically 
excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or

[[Page 47886]]

not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen 
whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are 
bone-in, cross-section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-
flaps.
    The subject merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen 
``basa'' and ``tra'' fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for 
these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff 
article codes 1604.19.4000\1\, 1604.19.5000\2\, 0305.59.4000\3\, 
0304.29.6033\4\ (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius including 
basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(``HTSUS'').\5\ This order covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the 
above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the 
HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our 
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case 
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish 
Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1, 
2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007.
    \2\ See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case 
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish 
Fillets: Third Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1, 
2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007.
    \3\ See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case 
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish 
Fillets: Second Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (February 2, 
2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007.
    \4\ See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy Robinson, Senior Case 
Analyst, Office 9, Import Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish 
Fillets: Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (January 30, 2007). 
This HTS went into effect on February 1, 2007.
    \5\ Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under 
tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets), 
0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen 
Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of 
the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these products were classifiable 
under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the 
species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ministerial Errors

    A ministerial error is defined in section 751(h) of the Act and 
further clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as ``an error in addition, 
subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting 
from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other 
similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers 
ministerial.''

ESS

    After analyzing ESS's single comment, we have determined, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that a ministerial error existed in 
the calculation for ESS in the Final Results because the Department 
inadvertently failed to change the surrogate value for fish as stated 
in Comment 4 of the Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, to David M. Spooner, Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, Subject: Issues and Decision 
Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review: Certain 
Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Issues 
and Decision Memo''). We are correcting this error for these amended 
results; however, the correction of this error does not change ESS's 
final margin. For a detailed discussion of this ministerial error, as 
well as the Department's analysis, see Memorandum to the File, through 
Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from 
Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 
Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final Results of ESS dated April 
18, 2008.

CATACO

    We agree with the Petitioners that, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.224(e), we made a ministerial error, with regard to the margin 
assigned to CATACO. In the Final Results, we incorrectly stated that 
CATACO was included in the Vietnam-wide entity and was assigned a 
margin of 63.88 percent. However, in the Preliminary Results CATACO 
received an individual adverse facts available margin of 80.88 percent 
and, as no interested parties provided comments on CATACO's margin in 
the case briefs, the individual adverse facts available margin for 
CATACO should have been unchanged and listed as 80.88 percent.

QVD

    QVD alleged eight ministerial error allegations: (1) the Department 
incorrectly applied the international freight charges pursuant to 
comment 5D of the Issues and Decision Memo; (2) the Department 
incorrectly included the undepreciated balance of the surrogate 
company's assets instead of the amount of annual depreciation 
corresponding to the financial year; (3) the Department did not exclude 
imports from ``Other Asia, nes'' in the surrogate value calculation for 
banding; (4) the Department did not correctly apply a revised gross 
unit price for certain verification findings; (5) the Department did 
not correctly exclude certain sales from the margin calculation based 
on verification findings; (6) the Department did not correctly apply 
the partial adverse facts available to QVD's direct and indirect labor 
pursuant to comment 6A of the Issues and Decision Memo; (7) the 
Department incorrectly used a non-corrugated paperboard surrogate value 
for cartons despite QVD s statement that its cartons were of corrugated 
paperboard in its June 12, 2007, questionnaire response; and (8) the 
Department neglected to deflate the whole fish surrogate value.
    The Petitioners argue that the Department intended to value QVD's 
cartons using the non-corrugated paperboard surrogate value as 
explained in Comment 6C of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 
Therefore, the Department should not value QVD's cartons using a 
corrugated paperboard surrogate value. The Petitioners also argue that 
QVD is incorrectly requesting that the Department deflate the fish 
surrogate value because this surrogate value is contemporaneous with 
the POR.
    We agree that seven of the eight allegations constitute inadvertent 
ministerial errors pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 351.224(e). We disagree with 
QVD's allegation that the fish surrogate value should be deflated. 
Because the whole fish surrogate value source is from the financial 
statements of Gachihata Aquaculture Farms Ltd. covering the fiscal year 
period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007 and the POR is August 1, 2006 
through July 31, 2007, there is significant overlap between the periods 
and, therefore, the data are considered contemporaneous. We also 
disagree with Petitioners that the Department correctly valued cartons 
using a non-corrugated surrogate value. In its questionnaire response 
QVD indicated that it used corrugated paperboard. See QVD's June 12, 
2008, Questionnaire Response. As a result, we agree with QVD that the 
Department made a ministerial error in using a non-corrugated 
paperboard surrogate value for cartons pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 
351.224(e). For a detailed discussion of the Department's analysis, see 
Memorandum to the File, through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Analysis Memorandum for the Amended Final 
Results of QVD dated April 18, 2008.
    Therefore, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act, 19 CFR 
351.224(e) and the CIT Order, we are amending the Final Results of the 
administrative review of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. The 
final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

[[Page 47887]]



                Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Weighted-Average
                Manufacturer/Exporter                  Margin (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESS.................................................                0.00
QVD.................................................                0.00
CATACO..............................................               80.88
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cash Deposit Requirements

    In this case, the weighted-average dumping margins for ESS and QVD 
did not change as a result of correcting the errors described above. 
Therefore, it is not necessary for the Department to amend the cash 
deposit instructions already submitted to the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (``CBP'') for ESS and QVD. With respect to CATACO, however, 
we will instruct CBP to collect antidumping duties for all shipments of 
the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for 
consumption as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, based 
on these amended final results, retroactively effective to March 24, 
2008, the date of publication of the Final Results.

Assessment

    Because the Department is currently enjoined from liquidation of 
any entries of subject merchandise exported by ESS and QVD, will not 
issue liquidation instructions to CBP until the conclusion of the 
litigation. CBP has already been instructed to liquidate CATACO's 
entries at the rate in effect at the time of entry.
    These amended final results are published in accordance with 
sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 12, 2008.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-19082 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S