Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Request for Revocation, In Part, of the Third Administrative Review, 10009-10019 [E9-4911]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– others rate effective during the POR (i.e., 5.95 percent) if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above7 will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 5.34 percent, the all–others rate made effective by the Section 129 determination. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 7 Effective January 16, 2009, there is no longer a cash deposit requirement for certain producers/ exporters in accordance with the Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in United States Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Thailand: Notice of Determination under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 74 FR 5638 (January 30, 2009) (Section 129 Determination). VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:25 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: March 2, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–4924 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 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 Request for Revocation, In Part, of the Third 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, 2007, through January 31, 2008. As discussed below, we preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’). 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 9, 2009. 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 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10009 warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See 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) (‘‘Order’’). On February 4, 2008, 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, 2007, through January 31, 2008. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 2008). On February 29, 2008, we received requests to conduct administrative reviews of 145 companies from Petitioner,1 two 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 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China 73 FR 18739 (April 7, 2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On April 7, 2008, the Department initiated an administrative review of 170 producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Vietnam. See Initiation Notice. However, after accounting for duplicate names and additional trade names associated with certain exporters, the number of companies upon which we initiated is actually 110 companies/groups. On April 8, 2008, the Department posted the separate rate certification and separate rate application on its website for Vietnamese exporters for whom a review was initiated to complete and submit to the Department. On April 14, 2008, May 5, 2008, and May 7, 2008, the Department received letters from Vinh Hoan Corporation (formerly Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd.) (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’), Kim Anh Co., Ltd. (‘‘Kim Anh’’), Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd., (‘‘Quoc Viet’’), and C.P. Vietnam Livestock Company Limited (‘‘CP Vietnam’’), respectively, indicating that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Of the 110 companies/groups upon which we initiated an administrative review, 78 companies did not submit separate rate certifications or 1 The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is the Petitioner. 2 Some of these requests created an overlap in the number of companies upon which an administrative review was requested. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 10010 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices applications. 28 companies submitted separate–rate certifications, and four companies stated that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department addresses the review status of each grouping of companies below. Respondent Selection On April 8, 2008, the Department placed on the record data obtained from CBP with respect to the selection of respondents, inviting comments from interested parties. See Letter from the Department to Interested Parties, re: CBP data for respondent selection, dated April 8, 2008. On April 21, 2008, Petitioner provided comments on the Department’s respondent selection methodology. On April 22, 2008, a number of Vietnamese companies3 provided comments on the Department’s respondent selection methodology. On April 24, 2008, Petitioner provided additional comments with respect to the Department’s respondent selection methodology. On June 9, 2008, the Department issued its respondent selection memorandum. Based upon section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, (‘‘the Act’’), the Department selected Camimex, Minh Phu Group4 (‘‘MPG’’), and Phuong Nam dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 3 These were: Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd.; and Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXICO’’); Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Cadovimex-Vietnam’’); Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘CAFATEX CORP’’); Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’); Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’); Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’); Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (and its affiliate Tho Quong Seafood Processing and Export Company) (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’); Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’); Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Sea Minh Hai’’); Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively ‘‘Minh Phu Group’’); Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise; Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘‘NHA TRANG SEAFOODS’’); Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & Import-Export Co., Ltd.; Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘FIMEX’’); Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import-Export Company (‘‘STAPIMEX’’); Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corportion (and its affiliates Frozen Seafoods Fty, Frozen Seafoods Factor No. 32, Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory); UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company; Viet Foods Co., Ltd.; Vinh Loi Import Export Company (‘‘VIMEX’’); Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (‘‘COFIDEC’’); Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘INCOMFISH’’); Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang FISCO’’); and Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’). 4 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 Co., Ltd. for individual review (hereinafter ‘‘mandatory respondents’’) because they were the largest exporters, by volume, within the CBP data. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, from Paul Walker, Senior Analyst, Re: Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). Questionnaires On June 9, 2008, the Department issued its non–market economy questionnaire to the mandatory respondents, Camimex, MPG, and Phuong Nam. Camimex, MPG, and Phuong Nam responded to the Department’s non–market economy questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires between July 2008 and February 2009. Extension of the Preliminary Results On September 18, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for the preliminary results until March 2, 2009. See Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time Limit for the Preliminary Results, 73 FR 54139 (September 18, 2008). 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,5 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild– caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn Seafood Corporation; Minh Phu Seafood Corp.; Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd.; Minh Qui Seafood; Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.; Minh Phat Seafood. 5 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 (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 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 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 As stated above, Vinh Hoan, Kim Anh, Quoc Viet, and CP Vietnam informed the Department that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department sent an inquiry to CBP to determine whether CBP entry data is consistent with these statements.6 With respect to Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet, CBP has not provided any information that contradicted these companies’ claims. Therefore, because the record indicates that Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet did not sell subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we are preliminarily rescinding this administrative review with respect to Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). However, we are not preliminarily rescinding the instant administrative review with respect to Kim Anh and CP Vietnam, because CBP provided a response to the Department’s inquiry that contradicted the no– shipment claims from Kim Anh and CP Vietnam. See Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, re: CBP Inquiry Results, dated March 2, 2009. We have requested information from the companies to address the discrepancy between the CBP data and the no–shipments certifications.7 Thus, pending additional information from the companies and CBP, we are not preliminarily rescinding the reviews with respect to Kim Anh and CP Vietnam. Therefore, the Department must preliminarily assign a rate to these companies. We note that Kim Anh and CP Vietnam have not provided any information on the record to indicate their eligibility for a rate separate from the Vietnam–wide entity. Consequently, we are preliminarily assigning Kim Anh and CP Vietnam the Vietnam–wide entity rate. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Vietnam–Wide Entity Upon initiation of the administrative review, we provided the opportunity for all companies upon which the review 6 The no-shipments-inquiry to CBP is at http:// addcvd.cbp.gov/ index.asp?docID=9035204&qu=&vw=detail. 7 On February 18, 2009, and February 19, 2009, the Department released under administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) the proprietary CBP data to counsel for Kim Anh and CP Vietnam, respectively. See Memoranda to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst; re: Kim Anh Response Deadline and CP Vietnam No Shipments Inquiry, dated February 18, 2009, and February 19, 2009, respectively. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 was initiated to complete either the separate–rates application or certification. The separate–rate certification and separate–rate applications are available at: http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/download/nme–sep-rates/ vietnam–shrimp/AR0708/vietnam– shrimp-sr–cert–040708.pdf. As noted above, Kim Anh and CP Vietnam did not apply for a separate rate in this administrative review. Therefore, Kim Anh and CP Vietnam will be part of the Vietnam–wide entity. Additionally, as stated above, 788 additional companies upon which a review was initiated did not apply for a separate rate. Because the Department preliminarily determines that there were exports of subject merchandise under review from Vietnamese producers/ exporters that did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate–rate status, the 8 These companies are: AAAS Logistics; Agrimex; Amerasian Shipping Logistics Corp.; American Container Line; An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (Agifish); An Xuyen, Angiang Agricultural; Technology Service Company; Aquatic Products Trading Company; Bentre Aquaproduct Imports & Exports; Bentre Forestry and Aquaproduct Import-Export Company (‘‘FAQUIMEX’’); Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports; Bentre Seafood Joint Stock; Beseaco, Binh Dinh Fishery Joint Stock; Ca Mau Seaproducts Exploitation and Service Corporation (‘‘SES’’); Camau Seafood Fty; Can Tho Seafood Exports; Cautre Enterprises; Chun Cheng Da Nang Co., Ltd.; Co Hieu; Cong Ty Do Hop Viet Cuong; Dao Van Manh; Dong Phuc Huynh; Dragon Waves Frozen Food Fty.; Duyen Hai Bac Lieu Company (‘‘T.K. Co.’’); Duyen Hai Foodstuffs Processing Factory (‘‘COSEAFEX’’); General Imports & Exports; Hacota; Hai Ha Private Enterprise; Hai Thuan Export Seaproduct Processing Co., Ltd. ; Hai Viet; Hai Viet Corporation (‘‘HAVICO’’); Hanoi Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Hanoi’’); Seaprodex Hanoi; Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct Fty; Hoa Nam Marine Agricultural; Hoan An Fishery; Hoan Vu Marine Product Co., Ltd.; Hua Heong Food Ind Vietnam; Khanh Loi Trading; Kien Gang Sea Products Import - Export Company (Kisimex); Kien Gang Seaproduct Import and Export Company (‘‘KISIMEX’’); Konoike Vinatrans Logistics; Lamson Import-Export Foodstuffs Corporation; Long An Food Processing Export Joint Stock Company (‘‘LAFOOCO’’); Lucky Shing; Nam Hai; Nha Trang Company Limited; Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd.; Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd.; Phat Loc Seafood; Phung Hung Private Business; Saigon Orchide; Sea Product; Sea Products Imports & Exports; Seafood Company Zone II (‘‘Thusaco2’’); Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company No.9 (previously Seafood Processing Imports Exports); Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory; Seaprodex; Seaprodex Quang Tri; Sonacos; Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd.; Song Huong ASC Joint Stock Company; Special Aquatic Products Joint Stock Company (‘‘Seaspimex’’); SSC; T & T Co., Ltd.; Tacvan Frozen Seafoods Processing Export Company; Thami Shipping & Airfreight; Thang Long; Thanh Long; Thanh Doan Seaproducts Import; Thien Ma Seafood; Tourism Material and Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City Branch); Truc An Company; Trung Duc Fisheries Private Enterprise; V N Seafoods; Vien Thang Private Enterprise; Viet Nhan Company; Vietfracht Can Tho; Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie Co.; Vietnam Northern Viking Technology Co. Ltd.; Vietnam Tomec Co., Ltd.; Vilfood Co.; and Vita. PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10011 Vietnam–wide entity is now under review. Request for Revocation, In Part On February 29, 2008, Fish One, one of the non–selected separate rate respondents in this proceeding, requested an administrative review and revocation of the Order. Although the Department acknowledged the review request within the Initiation Notice, we inadvertently omitted Fish One’s request for revocation within the Initiation Notice. On October 8, 2008, and January 2, 2009, Fish One filed comments arguing that the Department must comply with certain statutory and regulatory obligations related to revocation requests. Further, on January 8, 2009, Petitioner filed comments opposing Fish One’s request for verification of its data. In its initial request for revocation, Fish One argued that it has maintained three consecutive years of sales at not less than normal value. Fish One argued that, as a result of its alleged three consecutive years of no dumping, it is eligible for revocation under section 751(d)(1) of the Act and section 351.222(b)(2) of the Department’s regulations. We preliminarily determine not to revoke the Order with respect to Fish One. The Act affords the Department broad discretion to limit the number of respondents selected for individual review when the large number of review requests makes the individual calculation of dumping margins for all companies under review impracticable. Specifically, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act provides that if it is not practicable for the Department to make individual dumping margin determinations because of the large number of exporters or producers involved, the Department may determine margins for a reasonable number of exporters or producers. Although the Department’s regulations set out rules and requirements for possible revocation of a dumping order, in whole or in part, based on an absence of dumping, it is silent on the applicability of this regulation when the Department has limited its examination under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department does not interpret the regulation as requiring it to conduct an individual examination of Fish One, or a verification of Fish One’s data, where, as here, the Department determined to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters in accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B), and Fish One was not one of the companies selected under this provision. To interpret the regulation as Fish One has proposed, i.e., requiring the Department to analyze E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 10012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices and verify Fish One’s reported data, would undermine the authority Congress provided the Department to limit its examination in cases, such as shrimp from Vietnam, where there are many respondents under review (over 100 in this case). Under Fish One’s interpretation, the Department would be required to conduct individual reviews and verifications for any company requesting revocation, no matter how many such requests are received. The Department does not believe that such an interpretation is correct, nor warranted, under the Act. Nothing in the regulation requires the Department to conduct an individual examination and verification when the Department has limited its review, under section 777A(c)(2). As explained above, Fish One was not selected for individual review because, pursuant to 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected the three largest exporters, by volume. See Respondent Selection Memo. Thus, because we have not selected Fish One for individual examination, we preliminarily determine not to revoke the Order with respect to Fish One. However, Fish One filed a timely separate–rate certification, as evidence of its continued eligibility for a separate rate. Thus, the Department considers Fish One a cooperative respondent eligible for a separate rate. Moreover, as the Department has calculated positive margins for all three selected respondents in these preliminary results, we are assigning a separate rate to all SR respondents equal to the weighted average of the three calculated margins. See ‘‘Rate for Non–Selected Companies’’ section below. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Verification Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), between January 12 and January 16, 2009, we conducted a verification of Phuong Nam’s sales and factors of production (‘‘FOP’’). See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrinp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Verification of Sales and Factors of Production for Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’), dated March 2, 2009. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values On September 11, 2008, the Department sent interested parties a letter requesting comments on surrogate country selection and information pertaining to valuing factors of production. Camimex and MPG submitted surrogate country comments on January 5, 2009. Petitioner filed rebuttal surrogate country comments on January 8, 2009, opposing Camimex and VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 MPG’s request for the Department to select Bangladesh as the surrogate country. On January 30, 2009, Phuong Nam, MPG, Camimex and Petitioner submitted surrogate value data. On February 3, 2009, MPG and Camimex commented on Petitioner’s surrogate value data submission dated January 30, 2009. On February 4, 2009, Petitioner filed additional surrogate value data. On February 10, 2009, Petitioner filed pre– preliminary results comments with respect to the calculation methodology used to convert the shrimp surrogate values to the same basis as the respondents’ reported data. On February 11, 2009, Phuong Nam filed comments rebutting Petitioner’s surrogate value data dated February 10, 2009. For a detailed account of the Department’s surrogate country selection, please see the ‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section below. 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 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) (unchanged in final results). None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated the 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 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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’’). For this administrative review, the Department received a total of 28 separate–rate certifications.9 Of those 28 separate–rate certifications, three were submitted by the mandatory respondents, whose eligibility for a separate rate was analyzed within their respective questionnaire responses. Therefore, the Department analyzed 25 separate–rate certifications for companies upon which the administrative review was initiated, but not selected for individual review. Of those 25 separate–rate certifications, the Department noted that separate–rate certifications filed by seven exporters10 showed that these seven companies claimed to have undergone changes in name, legal and/or corporate structure during the POR. A separate–rate certification is not the proper vehicle by which a company that has undergone name or other corporate changes should request a separate rate. Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary results, the Department has examined the separate–rate eligibility of the respondents prior to any name or other corporate change. On December 9, 2008, the Department notified these seven respondents that any claims of successor–in-interest by these companies must be requested within the context of a changed circumstance review request. See Department’s letter dated December 9, 2009. The Department intends to take into account the final results of any changed circumstances review that has been requested, initiated, and completed before the final results of this review. Lastly, one separate rate company, Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited, reported that it is wholly owned by 9 For firms previously awarded separate rate status, the Department allows those firms to file a separate-rate certification, provided that the company did not undergo changes in status since the previous granting period. Additionally, firms that did not hold a separate rate in a previous granting period may not use a separate-rate certification, but, instead must submit a separaterate application for separate rate status. See separate-rate certificate issued by the Department on April 8, 2008; available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ download/nme-sep-rates/vietnam-shrimp/AR0708/ vietnam-shrimp-sr-cert-040708.pdf. 10 These exporters are: Cadovimex, CATACO, Stapimex, UTXI, Bac Lieu, Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, and Thuan Phuoc. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 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 further separate rates analysis is not necessary to determine whether this company is independent from government control.11 Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a separate rate to Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited. A. Absence of De Jure Control dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 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 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, Camimex, and Phuong Nam 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. Additionally, 25 participating separate 11 See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate from the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 7110405 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a separate rate). See also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Final Partial Rescission of the Second Administrative Review 73 FR 12127 (March 6, 2008), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273 (September 9, 2008) (‘‘Vietnam Shrimp AR2’’). VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 rate companies/groups12 submitted timely separate rate certifications. The seven respondents noted in footnote 10 are included in this group of 25. However, as stated above, the Department will examine the separate– rate eligibility of those respondents prior to any name or other corporate change until a successor–in-interest determination is made with respect to the new entities. 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.13 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 12 The non-selected respondents of this administrative review seeking a separate rate are: Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’), Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’), Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX’’), Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex), Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’), Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’), Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (‘‘COFIDEC’’), Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’), Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) and affiliate Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company, Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’), Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing JointStock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’), Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’), Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise, Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’), Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’), Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & Import-Export Co., Ltd., Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘FIMEX’’), Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’), Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation (and its affiliates), UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company, Viet Foods Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. a/k/a Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (Fish One), Vinh Loi Import Export Company (‘‘VIMEX’’). 13 This preliminary finding applies to the three mandatory respondents of this administrative review: MPG, Camimex, and Phuong Nam, and the non-selected respondents eligible for a separate rate listed in the preceding footnote. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10013 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 Phuong Nam submitted evidence indicating an absence of de facto 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 Phuong Nam, and the separate rate companies have established prima facie that they qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers. Rate for Non–Selected Companies Based on timely requests from individual exporters and Petitioner, the Department originally initiated this review with respect to 110 companies/ groups. In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 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 three exporters, MPG, Camimex, and Phuong Nam as mandatory respondents in this review. Twenty–five additional companies submitted timely information as requested by the Department and remain subject to review as cooperative separate rate respondents. 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 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 10014 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Department’s practice in this regard, in cases involving limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of trade, has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all–others rate in an investigation, for guidance. Consequently, the Department generally weight–averages the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding zero and de minimis rates and rates based entirely on adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), and applies that resulting weighted–average margin to non–selected cooperative separate–rate respondents. See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in final results). Consequently, consistent with our practice, we have preliminarily established a weighted–average margin for the separate–rate respondents based on the rates we calculated for the three mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on AFA. See Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results Simple–Averaged Margin for Separate Rate Respondents, dated March 2, 2009. For the Vietnam–wide entity, we have assigned the entity’s current rate and only rate ever determined for the entity in this proceeding. 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 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 Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9 from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Office 9; Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, dated March 2, 2009 (‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’). Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of potential surrogate countries from the Office of Policy (‘‘OP’’).14 The OP determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia were at a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam. See Surrogate Country List. The Department considers the five countries identified by the OP in its Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally comparable in terms of economic development.’’ Id. Thus, we find that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia are all at an economic level of development equally comparable to that of Vietnam. Also, based on publicly available data published by the Food and Agricultural Organization (‘‘FAO’’) of the United Nations’ FishStat Database (‘‘FishStat’’), we obtained world production data of frozen warmwater shrimp. Specifically, the Department has reviewed the data from FishStat which shows that Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka all produce the identical merchandise. See Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Re: Third Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Fishstat Data, dated March 2, 2009. Therefore, all countries are being considered as an appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam because each country produces the identical merchandise. Moreover, according to FishStat, in 2005, the most recent year for which FishStat export statistics are available, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India, are all significant producers of comparable merchandise. See id. Though both Pakistan and Sri Lanka export frozen shrimp, the quantities they export do not qualify them as significant producers of the subject merchandise. As Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India are all significant producers of comparable merchandise, the Department must look to data considerations when choosing the most appropriate surrogate country from among these countries. With regard to India and Indonesia, the record contains publicly available surrogate factor value information for some factors. MPG and Camimex provided data for both Indonesia and 14 See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated July 29, 2008 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’) from the OP. PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Bangladesh from a study conducted by the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia–Pacific (‘‘NACA’’), an intergovernmental organization affiliated with the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (‘‘FAO’’). However, unlike the Bangladeshi data within the NACA study, the Indonesian shrimp data is limited and does not satisfy as many factors of the Department’s data selection criteria (e.g., broad–market average). Thus, Indonesia is not the most appropriate surrogate country for purposes of this review. With respect to India, the only shrimp value on the record is ranged data obtained from one Indian respondent’s data in the current administrative review of warmwater shrimp from India, which also does not satisfy as many factors of the Department’s data selection criteria (e.g., public availability, broad–market average). The Department’s practice when selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are product–specific, representative of a broad market average, publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and duties.15 As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly available data representing a broad market average to value surrogate values. See id. The Department notes that the value of the main input, head–on, shell–on (‘‘HOSO’’) shrimp, is a critical factor of production in the dumping calculation as it accounts for a significant percentage of normal value. Moreover, the ability to value shrimp on a count size basis is a significant consideration with respect to the data available on the record. The Department notes that the mandatory respondents and Petitioner submitted count–size specific shrimp data and equally comparable surrogate company financial statements from shrimp processors. Therefore, availability of count–size specific data or surrogate financial ratios on this record is not the determining factor in selecting a surrogate country for this review. However, the Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study are compiled by the UN’s FAO from actual pricing records kept by Bangladeshi 15 See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2A. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices farmers, traders, depots, agents, and processors. See Factor Valuation Memo. The Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study represent a broad– market average and are publicly available, unlike those of the single Indian processor. Therefore, with respect to the data considerations, because the record contains shrimp values for Bangladesh that better meet our selection criteria than the India source, we are selecting Bangladesh as the surrogate country. In this regard, given the above–cited facts, we find that the information on the record shows that Bangladesh is an 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 for surrogate valuation purposes. 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.16 U.S. Price dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES A. Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the export price (‘‘EP’’) for sales to the United States for Camimex and Phuong Nam because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation and the use of constructed export price (‘‘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 16 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. See Glycine from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 in the United States. 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 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 all three mandatory respondents, see Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, 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 March 2, 2009 (‘‘MPG Analysis Memo’’); Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Blaine Wiltse, Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10015 Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Phuong Nam Co., Ltd., dated March 2, 2009 (‘‘Phuong Nam Analysis Memo’’); and Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Robert Palmer, Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Camimex, dated March 2, 2009 (‘‘Camimex Analysis Memo’’). 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 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 10016 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 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 of the Act 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 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conference Report to Accompanying, 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. With respect to certain purchases made by all three mandatory respondents, the Department noted that the purchase prices for certain inputs used to produce subject merchandise were from a country that we believe or suspect maintains broadly available, non–industry-specific export subsidies. As a result, we have, instead, used a surrogate value for those inputs. For further detail, see MPG Analysis Memo, Phuong Nam Analysis Memo, and Camimex Analysis Memo. Raw Shrimp Value The Department notes that the mandatory respondents and Petitioner submitted Bangladeshi shrimp values VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 with which to value the main input, raw shrimp. Phuong Nam submitted Bangladeshi shrimp values obtained from a single processor, Apex Foods Limited. Petitioner submitted shrimp values based on a survey of several Bangladeshi shrimp processors. As stated above, MPG and Camimex submitted data contained in the NACA study compiled by the UN’s FAO. As stated above, the Department’s practice when selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values which are product– specific, representative of a broad market average, publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and duties. Phuong Nam’s submitted shrimp values from Apex Foods Limited, although publicly available, are from a single Bangladeshi shrimp producer of comparable merchandise, thus does not represent a broad market average of prices. Further, with respect to Petitioner’s submitted shrimp values obtained from a survey of several Bangladeshi shrimp producers, we note that the authors of the survey averaged the shrimp prices they collected for business confidentiality reasons, thus the underlying data are not publicly available.17 The Department prefers using public data, when available, with which to value the FOPs. See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 26329 (May 4, 2006) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; see also Saccharin from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 7515 (February 13, 2006) and accompany Issued and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. Therefore, to value the main input, head–on, shell–on shrimp, the Department used data contained in the NACA study.18 Additionally, Petitioners filed pre– preliminary results comments with respect to the calculation steps required to adjust the HOSO shrimp surrogate values to the ‘‘headless, shell–on’’ (‘‘HLSO’’) shrimp consumption reported by the mandatory respondents. Consequently, we reviewed the adjustment methodology and concluded 17 See Petitioner’s Submission dated February 4, 2009, at Attachment I, page 3. See also Vietnam Shrimp AR2 at Comment 2 (where the Department rejected shrimp surrogate values obtained from price quotes or ranged proprietary data). 18 For a detailed explanation of the Department’s valuation of shrimp, see Factor Valuation Memo. PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 that the Department has overlooked a calculation step within the methodology in adjusting the surrogate value data to the respondents’ shrimp consumption data, taking into account different bases of reported data. Specifically, the surrogate value data is on a HOSO, pieces per kilogram basis, while the respondents’ data is on a HLSO, pieces per pound basis. The Department has added an additional step in the HLSO to HOSO adjustment, such that the surrogate value data and shrimp consumption data upon which accurate margin calculations rely are on the same bases with respect to units of measure and HOSO. See Factor Valuation Memo for a detailed description of each step within the conversion methodology. 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.19 The data represents cumulative values for the calendar year 2006, 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). 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 POR 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 19 This can be accessed online at: http:// www.unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/ E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. Certain surrogate values were calculated using data from the 2005 Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh, published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of Planning. The information represents cumulative values for the period of 2005. 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 2007– 10017 2008 financial statement of Apex Foods Limited and the 2006–2007 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, 2007, through January 31, 2008: CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM Weighted–Average Margin (Percent) dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Manufacturer/Exporter MPG:Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., akaMinh Phat Seafood akaMinh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) akaMinh Phu Seafood Corp. akaMinh Phu Seafood Corporation akaMinh Qui Seafood akaMinh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. ................................ Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’), akaCamimex, akaCamau Seafood Factory No. 4 , akaCamau Seafood Factory No. 5 ....................................................................................... Phuong Nam Co. Ltd., akaPhuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd. akaWestern Seafood ................................................... Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. .................................................................................................................................. Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited, akaBac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’)20 ............................ Cadovimex Seafood Import–Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX’’) akaCai Doi Vam Seafood Import–Export Company (Cadovimex)21 ................................................................................................. Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘Cafatex Corp.’’) akaCantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex), akaCafatex, akaCafatex Vietnam, akaXi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat Khau Can Tho, akaCas, akaCas Branch, akaCafatex Saigon, akaCafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, akaCafatex Corporation, akaTaydo Seafood Enterprise ....................................................................................... Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) akaCamranh Seafoods ................ Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) akaCan Tho Agricultural Products akaCATACO22 ................................................................................................................................................ Coastal Fishery Development akaCoastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) akaCoastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) ...................................................................................................................... Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) akaCuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro) akaCuulong Seapro, akaCuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) ................ Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) akaTho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company, akaSeaprodex Danang, akaTho Quang Seafood Processing And Export Company, akaTho Quang, akaTho Quang Co. .................................................................................................................................... Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32, akaFrozen Seafoods Fty, akaThuan Phuoc, akaThuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation, akaFrozen Seafoods Factory 32, akaSeafoods and Foodstuff Factory23 .......................... Grobest & I–Mei Industry Vietnam, akaGrobest, akaGrobest & I–Mei Industry (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. ....................... Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’) ..................................................................................... Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, akaMinh Hai Jostoco, akaMinh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint–Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’), akaMinh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint–Stock Company, akaMinh Hai Joint Stock Seafood Processing Joint–Stock Company, akaMinh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint–Stock Co.24 .................................................................... Minh Hai Joint–Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’) akaSea Minh Hai, akaMinh Hai Joint–Stock Seafoods Processing Company ......................................................................................................... Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co) , akaCa Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’) akaSeaprimexco Vietnam, akaSeaprimexcoCa Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (Seaprimexco) ........................................................................................................................................................ Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise, akaNgoc Sinh Seafoods, akaNgoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprise ........................................................................................................................................................................ 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. ................................................................................. Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’) .................................................................................................. Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’)25 ................................................ UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company, akaUT XI Aquatic Products Processing Company, akaUT–XI Aquatic Products Processing Company, akaUTXI, akaUTXI Co. Ltd., akaKhanh Loi Seafood Factory, akaHoang Phuong Seafood Factory26 .................................................................................................................. Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Viet Foods’’) .......................................................................................................................... Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. akaVietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (Fish One) ................................................................... Vinh Loi Import Export Company (‘‘Vimexco’’), akaVinh Loi Import Export Company (‘‘VIMEX’’), akaVIMEXCO, akaVIMEX .............................................................................................................................................................. Vietnam–Wide Rate27 ................................................................................................................................................ 1.66 % 9.84 5.46 4.26 4.26 % % % % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 4.26 4.26 4.26 4.26 4.26 % % % % % % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 4.26 % 25.76 % 20 As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended Bac Lieu’s separate-rate status to Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company in these preliminary results. 21 As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended Cadovimex’s separate-rate status to ‘‘CadovimexVietnam’’ in these preliminary results. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 10018 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 22 For the same reasons discussed in Vietnam Shrimp AR2 Final, we have not extended Cataco’s separate rate status to Cantho Import-Export Seafood Joint Stock Company, also known as Caseamex. See Vietnam Shrimp AR2 at Comment 7. 23 As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended Thuan Phuoc’s separate-rate, pertaining to its status prior to any name or corporate changes, to the new entity in these preliminary results. 24 For the same reasons discussed in Vietnam Shrimp AR2 Final, we have not extended Minh Hai Jostoco’s separate-rate status to: Kien Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Kien Cuong’’) and Viet Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Viet Cuong’’). See Vietnam Shrimp AR2 at Comment 7. We further note that, to date, Minh Hai Jostoco has not filed a changed circumstance review with respect to Kien Cuong and Viet Cuong. 25 As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended Stapimex’s separate-rate status to Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company in these preliminary results. 26 As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended UTXI’s separate-rate status to UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation in these preliminary results. 27 The Vietnam-wide entity rate preliminarily includes Kim Anh and CP Vietnam. The Department will disclose calculations performed for these preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in such briefs or comments, may be filed no later than 37 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Any interested party may request a hearing within 30 days of publication of these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Requests should contain the following information: (1) the party’s name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If we receive a request for a hearing, we plan to hold the hearing seven days after the deadline for submission of the rebuttal briefs at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Assessment Rates Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by these reviews. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries containing merchandise from the Vietnam–wide entity at the Vietnam–wide rate we determine in the final results of review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. In accordance with 19 CFR VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 351.212(b)(1), for Camimex, MPG, and Phuong Nam, we calculated an exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate for the merchandise subject to this review. Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to each importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer’s/ customer’s entries during the review period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we calculated a per– unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where an importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual review pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. Where the weighted–average ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). For Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet, companies for which this review is preliminarily rescinded, antidumping PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2). Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of the administrative review for all shipments of warmwater shrimp from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the exporters listed above, the cash–deposit rate will be that established in the final results of review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above that have separate rates, the cash– deposit rate will continue to be the exporter–specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all other Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise, which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash–deposit rate will be the Vietnam–wide rate of 25.76 percent; and (4) for all non–Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash– deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnamese exporter that supplied that exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4). Dated: March 2, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–4911 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–588–846] dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Products From Japan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 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 hotrolled flat-rolled carbon quality steel products (hot-rolled steel) from Japan. The United States Steel Corporation (Petitioner) requested administrative reviews of JFE Steel Corporation (JFE), Nippon Steel Corporation (Nippon), and Kobe Steel, Ltd. (Kobe). This review covers exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the period June 1, 2007 through May 31, 2008. We preliminarily determine that, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), adverse facts available (AFA) should be applied to JFE, Nippon, and Kobe for not cooperating with the Department in this administrative review. The antidumping margins assigned to these companies are listed in the Preliminary Results of Review section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, Office 6, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–5050. Background On June 29, 1999, the Department published the antidumping duty order on hot-rolled steel from Japan in the Federal Register. See Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 1999). On June 9, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of this order. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation: Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 32557 (June 9, 2008). The Department received a timely request for a review from Petitioner, covering JFE, Nippon, and Kobe. On July 30, 2008, the Department published its initiation notice for the administrative review of these companies under the antidumping order on hot-rolled steel from Japan. See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, and Request for Revocation in Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review, 73 FR 44220 (July 30, 2008). The Department issued Sections A through E of its original questionnaire to JFE, Nippon, and Kobe.1 The deadlines to submit responses to the Department’s questionnaire were September 1, 2008 for Section A, and September 17, 2008 for Sections B through E, for JFE and Nippon, and October 14, 2008 for Section A, and October 30, 2008 for Sections B through E for Kobe. On August 12, 2008, JFE Corporation submitted a letter stating that, effective April 1, 2003, Kawasaki Steel Corporation had changed its name to JFE as part of a merger with NKK Corporation.2 On August 19, 2008, Nippon submitted a letter stating that it would not be submitting a response to the Department’s questionnaire. Neither JFE, Nippon, nor Kobe submitted any response to the Department’s questionnaire. Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order consists of certain hot-rolled flatrolled carbon-quality steel products of a rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch or greater, neither clad, plated, nor 1 Section A of the questionnaire requests general information concerning a company’s corporate structure and business practices, the merchandise under investigation that it sells, and the manner in which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. Section B requests a complete listing of all home market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, of sales in the most appropriate third-country market (this section is not applicable to respondents in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D requests information on the cost of production (COP) of the foreign like product and the constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under investigation. Section E requests information on further manufacturing. 2 The Department has not previously determined whether JFE is a successor to Kawasaki Steel Corporation or NKK Corporation nor has it been requested to do so in this review. PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10019 coated with metal and whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances, in coils (whether or not in successively superimposed layers) regardless of thickness, and in straight lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and of a width measuring at least 10 times the thickness. Universal mill plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 mm but not exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and without patterns in relief) of a thickness not less than 4.0 mm is not included within the scope of this order. Specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, and the substrate for motor lamination steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. The substrate for motor lamination steels contains micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. Steel products to be included in the scope of this investigation, regardless of Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) definitions, are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated: 1.80 percent of manganese, or 1.50 percent of silicon, or 1.00 percent of copper, or 0.50 percent of aluminum, or 1.25 percent of chromium, or 0.30 percent of cobalt, or 0.40 percent of lead, or 1.25 percent of nickel, or 0.30 percent of tungsten, or 0.012 percent of boron, or 0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 0.10 percent of niobium, or 0.41 percent of titanium, or 0.15 percent of vanadium, or 0.15 percent of zirconium. All products that meet the physical and chemical description provided above are within the scope of this order unless otherwise excluded. The following products, by way of example, are outside and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order: • Alloy hot-rolled steel products in which at least one of the chemical E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 44 (Monday, March 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10009-10019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4911]


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

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 
Request for Revocation, In Part, of the Third 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, 
2007, through January 31, 2008. As discussed below, we preliminarily 
determine that sales have been made below normal value (``NV''). 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 9, 2009.

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 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) (``Order''). On February 4, 2008, 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, 2007, through January 31, 2008. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 
2008).
    On February 29, 2008, we received requests to conduct 
administrative reviews of 145 companies from Petitioner,\1\ two 
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 Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the 
People's Republic of China 73 FR 18739 (April 7, 2008) (``Initiation 
Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is the Petitioner.
    \2\ Some of these requests created an overlap in the number of 
companies upon which an administrative review was requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 7, 2008, the Department initiated an administrative review 
of 170 producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Vietnam. See 
Initiation Notice. However, after accounting for duplicate names and 
additional trade names associated with certain exporters, the number of 
companies upon which we initiated is actually 110 companies/groups. On 
April 8, 2008, the Department posted the separate rate certification 
and separate rate application on its website for Vietnamese exporters 
for whom a review was initiated to complete and submit to the 
Department.
    On April 14, 2008, May 5, 2008, and May 7, 2008, the Department 
received letters from Vinh Hoan Corporation (formerly Vinh Hoan Co., 
Ltd.) (``Vinh Hoan''), Kim Anh Co., Ltd. (``Kim Anh''), Quoc Viet 
Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd., (``Quoc 
Viet''), and C.P. Vietnam Livestock Company Limited (``CP Vietnam''), 
respectively, indicating that they made no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR.
    Of the 110 companies/groups upon which we initiated an 
administrative review, 78 companies did not submit separate rate 
certifications or

[[Page 10010]]

applications. 28 companies submitted separate-rate certifications, and 
four companies stated that they did not export subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. The Department addresses the review 
status of each grouping of companies below.

Respondent Selection

    On April 8, 2008, the Department placed on the record data obtained 
from CBP with respect to the selection of respondents, inviting 
comments from interested parties. See Letter from the Department to 
Interested Parties, re: CBP data for respondent selection, dated April 
8, 2008. On April 21, 2008, Petitioner provided comments on the 
Department's respondent selection methodology. On April 22, 2008, a 
number of Vietnamese companies\3\ provided comments on the Department's 
respondent selection methodology. On April 24, 2008, Petitioner 
provided additional comments with respect to the Department's 
respondent selection methodology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These were: Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd.; 
and Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (``SEAPRIMEXICO''); Cadovimex 
Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint-Stock Company 
(``Cadovimex-Vietnam''); Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation 
(``CAFATEX CORP''); Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export 
Corporation (``CAMIMEX''); Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products 
Import Export Company (``CATACO''); Cuulong Seaproducts Company 
(``Cuulong Seapro''); Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation 
(and its affiliate Tho Quong Seafood Processing and Export Company) 
(``Seaprodex Danang''); Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing 
Joint-Stock Company (``Minh Hai Jostoco''); Minh Hai Joint-Stock 
Seafoods Processing Company (``Sea Minh Hai''); Minh Phu Seafood 
Export Import Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., 
Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively ``Minh Phu 
Group''); Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise; Nha Trang Seaproduct Company 
(``NHA TRANG SEAFOODS''); Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & Import-
Export Co., Ltd.; Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (``FIMEX''); Soc 
Trang Aquatic Products and General Import-Export Company 
(``STAPIMEX''); Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corportion (and its 
affiliates Frozen Seafoods Fty, Frozen Seafoods Factor No. 32, 
Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory); UTXI Aquatic Products Processing 
Company; Viet Foods Co., Ltd.; Vinh Loi Import Export Company 
(``VIMEX''); Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation 
(``COFIDEC''); Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation 
(``INCOMFISH''); Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (``Nha 
Trang FISCO''); and Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (``Bac 
Lieu'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 9, 2008, the Department issued its respondent selection 
memorandum. Based upon section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 
as amended, (``the Act''), the Department selected Camimex, Minh Phu 
Group\4\ (``MPG''), and Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. for individual review 
(hereinafter ``mandatory respondents'') because they were the largest 
exporters, by volume, within the CBP data. See Memorandum to James C. 
Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, from Paul Walker, Senior Analyst, Re: 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection of Respondents 
for Individual Review (``Respondent Selection Memo'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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 June 9, 2008, the Department issued its non-market economy 
questionnaire to the mandatory respondents, Camimex, MPG, and Phuong 
Nam. Camimex, MPG, and Phuong Nam responded to the Department's non-
market economy questionnaire and subsequent supplemental questionnaires 
between July 2008 and February 2009.

Extension of the Preliminary Results

    On September 18, 2008, the Department extended the deadline for the 
preliminary results until March 2, 2009. See Third Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time Limit for the 
Preliminary Results, 73 FR 54139 (September 18, 2008).

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,\5\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``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

[[Page 10011]]

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

    As stated above, Vinh Hoan, Kim Anh, Quoc Viet, and CP Vietnam 
informed the Department that they did not export subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR. The Department sent an inquiry to CBP 
to determine whether CBP entry data is consistent with these 
statements.\6\ With respect to Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet, CBP has not 
provided any information that contradicted these companies' claims. 
Therefore, because the record indicates that Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet 
did not sell subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, 
we are preliminarily rescinding this administrative review with respect 
to Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). However, we are 
not preliminarily rescinding the instant administrative review with 
respect to Kim Anh and CP Vietnam, because CBP provided a response to 
the Department's inquiry that contradicted the no-shipment claims from 
Kim Anh and CP Vietnam. See Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, 
Senior Analyst, re: CBP Inquiry Results, dated March 2, 2009. We have 
requested information from the companies to address the discrepancy 
between the CBP data and the no-shipments certifications.\7\ Thus, 
pending additional information from the companies and CBP, we are not 
preliminarily rescinding the reviews with respect to Kim Anh and CP 
Vietnam. Therefore, the Department must preliminarily assign a rate to 
these companies. We note that Kim Anh and CP Vietnam have not provided 
any information on the record to indicate their eligibility for a rate 
separate from the Vietnam-wide entity. Consequently, we are 
preliminarily assigning Kim Anh and CP Vietnam the Vietnam-wide entity 
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The no-shipments-inquiry to CBP is at http://addcvd.cbp.gov/
index.asp?docID=9035204&qu=&vw=detail.
    \7\ On February 18, 2009, and February 19, 2009, the Department 
released under administrative protective order (``APO'') the 
proprietary CBP data to counsel for Kim Anh and CP Vietnam, 
respectively. See Memoranda to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior 
International Trade Compliance Analyst; re: Kim Anh Response 
Deadline and CP Vietnam No Shipments Inquiry, dated February 18, 
2009, and February 19, 2009, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vietnam-Wide Entity

    Upon initiation of the administrative review, we provided the 
opportunity for all companies upon which the review was initiated to 
complete either the separate-rates application or certification. The 
separate-rate certification and separate-rate applications are 
available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/nme-sep-rates/vietnam-
shrimp/AR0708/vietnam-shrimp-sr-cert-040708.pdf.
    As noted above, Kim Anh and CP Vietnam did not apply for a separate 
rate in this administrative review. Therefore, Kim Anh and CP Vietnam 
will be part of the Vietnam-wide entity. Additionally, as stated above, 
78\8\ additional companies upon which a review was initiated did not 
apply for a separate rate. Because the Department preliminarily 
determines that there were exports of subject merchandise under review 
from Vietnamese producers/exporters that did not demonstrate their 
eligibility for separate-rate status, the Vietnam-wide entity is now 
under review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ These companies are: AAAS Logistics; Agrimex; Amerasian 
Shipping Logistics Corp.; American Container Line; An Giang 
Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (Agifish); An Xuyen, 
Angiang Agricultural; Technology Service Company; Aquatic Products 
Trading Company; Bentre Aquaproduct Imports & Exports; Bentre 
Forestry and Aquaproduct Import-Export Company (``FAQUIMEX''); 
Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports; Bentre Seafood Joint Stock; 
Beseaco, Binh Dinh Fishery Joint Stock; Ca Mau Seaproducts 
Exploitation and Service Corporation (``SES''); Camau Seafood Fty; 
Can Tho Seafood Exports; Cautre Enterprises; Chun Cheng Da Nang Co., 
Ltd.; Co Hieu; Cong Ty Do Hop Viet Cuong; Dao Van Manh; Dong Phuc 
Huynh; Dragon Waves Frozen Food Fty.; Duyen Hai Bac Lieu Company 
(``T.K. Co.''); Duyen Hai Foodstuffs Processing Factory 
(``COSEAFEX''); General Imports & Exports; Hacota; Hai Ha Private 
Enterprise; Hai Thuan Export Seaproduct Processing Co., Ltd. ; Hai 
Viet; Hai Viet Corporation (``HAVICO''); Hanoi Seaproducts Import 
Export Corporation (``Seaprodex Hanoi''); Seaprodex Hanoi; Hatrang 
Frozen Seaproduct Fty; Hoa Nam Marine Agricultural; Hoan An Fishery; 
Hoan Vu Marine Product Co., Ltd.; Hua Heong Food Ind Vietnam; Khanh 
Loi Trading; Kien Gang Sea Products Import - Export Company 
(Kisimex); Kien Gang Seaproduct Import and Export Company 
(``KISIMEX''); Konoike Vinatrans Logistics; Lamson Import-Export 
Foodstuffs Corporation; Long An Food Processing Export Joint Stock 
Company (``LAFOOCO''); Lucky Shing; Nam Hai; Nha Trang Company 
Limited; Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd.; Pataya Food Industry 
(Vietnam) Ltd.; Phat Loc Seafood; Phung Hung Private Business; 
Saigon Orchide; Sea Product; Sea Products Imports & Exports; Seafood 
Company Zone II (``Thusaco2''); Seafood Processing Joint Stock 
Company No.9 (previously Seafood Processing Imports Exports); 
Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory; Seaprodex; Seaprodex Quang Tri; 
Sonacos; Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd.; Song Huong ASC 
Joint Stock Company; Special Aquatic Products Joint Stock Company 
(``Seaspimex''); SSC; T & T Co., Ltd.; Tacvan Frozen Seafoods 
Processing Export Company; Thami Shipping & Airfreight; Thang Long; 
Thanh Long; Thanh Doan Seaproducts Import; Thien Ma Seafood; Tourism 
Material and Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City Branch); 
Truc An Company; Trung Duc Fisheries Private Enterprise; V N 
Seafoods; Vien Thang Private Enterprise; Viet Nhan Company; 
Vietfracht Can Tho; Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie Co.; Vietnam 
Northern Viking Technology Co. Ltd.; Vietnam Tomec Co., Ltd.; 
Vilfood Co.; and Vita.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Request for Revocation, In Part

    On February 29, 2008, Fish One, one of the non-selected separate 
rate respondents in this proceeding, requested an administrative review 
and revocation of the Order. Although the Department acknowledged the 
review request within the Initiation Notice, we inadvertently omitted 
Fish One's request for revocation within the Initiation Notice. On 
October 8, 2008, and January 2, 2009, Fish One filed comments arguing 
that the Department must comply with certain statutory and regulatory 
obligations related to revocation requests. Further, on January 8, 
2009, Petitioner filed comments opposing Fish One's request for 
verification of its data.
    In its initial request for revocation, Fish One argued that it has 
maintained three consecutive years of sales at not less than normal 
value. Fish One argued that, as a result of its alleged three 
consecutive years of no dumping, it is eligible for revocation under 
section 751(d)(1) of the Act and section 351.222(b)(2) of the 
Department's regulations.
    We preliminarily determine not to revoke the Order with respect to 
Fish One. The Act affords the Department broad discretion to limit the 
number of respondents selected for individual review when the large 
number of review requests makes the individual calculation of dumping 
margins for all companies under review impracticable. Specifically, 
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act provides that if it is not practicable 
for the Department to make individual dumping margin determinations 
because of the large number of exporters or producers involved, the 
Department may determine margins for a reasonable number of exporters 
or producers. Although the Department's regulations set out rules and 
requirements for possible revocation of a dumping order, in whole or in 
part, based on an absence of dumping, it is silent on the applicability 
of this regulation when the Department has limited its examination 
under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department does not interpret 
the regulation as requiring it to conduct an individual examination of 
Fish One, or a verification of Fish One's data, where, as here, the 
Department determined to limit its examination to a reasonable number 
of exporters in accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B), and Fish One was 
not one of the companies selected under this provision. To interpret 
the regulation as Fish One has proposed, i.e., requiring the Department 
to analyze

[[Page 10012]]

and verify Fish One's reported data, would undermine the authority 
Congress provided the Department to limit its examination in cases, 
such as shrimp from Vietnam, where there are many respondents under 
review (over 100 in this case). Under Fish One's interpretation, the 
Department would be required to conduct individual reviews and 
verifications for any company requesting revocation, no matter how many 
such requests are received. The Department does not believe that such 
an interpretation is correct, nor warranted, under the Act. Nothing in 
the regulation requires the Department to conduct an individual 
examination and verification when the Department has limited its 
review, under section 777A(c)(2). As explained above, Fish One was not 
selected for individual review because, pursuant to 777A(c)(2)(B) of 
the Act, the Department selected the three largest exporters, by 
volume. See Respondent Selection Memo. Thus, because we have not 
selected Fish One for individual examination, we preliminarily 
determine not to revoke the Order with respect to Fish One.
    However, Fish One filed a timely separate-rate certification, as 
evidence of its continued eligibility for a separate rate. Thus, the 
Department considers Fish One a cooperative respondent eligible for a 
separate rate. Moreover, as the Department has calculated positive 
margins for all three selected respondents in these preliminary 
results, we are assigning a separate rate to all SR respondents equal 
to the weighted average of the three calculated margins. See ``Rate for 
Non-Selected Companies'' section below.

Verification

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), between January 12 and January 
16, 2009, we conducted a verification of Phuong Nam's sales and factors 
of production (``FOP''). See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrinp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Verification of Sales and Factors of 
Production for Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. (``Phuong Nam''), dated March 2, 
2009.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values

    On September 11, 2008, the Department sent interested parties a 
letter requesting comments on surrogate country selection and 
information pertaining to valuing factors of production. Camimex and 
MPG submitted surrogate country comments on January 5, 2009. Petitioner 
filed rebuttal surrogate country comments on January 8, 2009, opposing 
Camimex and MPG's request for the Department to select Bangladesh as 
the surrogate country.
    On January 30, 2009, Phuong Nam, MPG, Camimex and Petitioner 
submitted surrogate value data. On February 3, 2009, MPG and Camimex 
commented on Petitioner's surrogate value data submission dated January 
30, 2009. On February 4, 2009, Petitioner filed additional surrogate 
value data. On February 10, 2009, Petitioner filed pre-preliminary 
results comments with respect to the calculation methodology used to 
convert the shrimp surrogate values to the same basis as the 
respondents' reported data. On February 11, 2009, Phuong Nam filed 
comments rebutting Petitioner's surrogate value data dated February 10, 
2009.
    For a detailed account of the Department's surrogate country 
selection, please see the ``Surrogate Country'' section below.

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 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) (unchanged in final results). 
None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. 
Accordingly, we calculated the 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'').
    For this administrative review, the Department received a total of 
28 separate-rate certifications.\9\ Of those 28 separate-rate 
certifications, three were submitted by the mandatory respondents, 
whose eligibility for a separate rate was analyzed within their 
respective questionnaire responses. Therefore, the Department analyzed 
25 separate-rate certifications for companies upon which the 
administrative review was initiated, but not selected for individual 
review. Of those 25 separate-rate certifications, the Department noted 
that separate-rate certifications filed by seven exporters\10\ showed 
that these seven companies claimed to have undergone changes in name, 
legal and/or corporate structure during the POR. A separate-rate 
certification is not the proper vehicle by which a company that has 
undergone name or other corporate changes should request a separate 
rate. Accordingly, for purposes of these preliminary results, the 
Department has examined the separate-rate eligibility of the 
respondents prior to any name or other corporate change. On December 9, 
2008, the Department notified these seven respondents that any claims 
of successor-in-interest by these companies must be requested within 
the context of a changed circumstance review request. See Department's 
letter dated December 9, 2009. The Department intends to take into 
account the final results of any changed circumstances review that has 
been requested, initiated, and completed before the final results of 
this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For firms previously awarded separate rate status, the 
Department allows those firms to file a separate-rate certification, 
provided that the company did not undergo changes in status since 
the previous granting period. Additionally, firms that did not hold 
a separate rate in a previous granting period may not use a 
separate-rate certification, but, instead must submit a separate-
rate application for separate rate status. See separate-rate 
certificate issued by the Department on April 8, 2008; available at: 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/nme-sep-rates/vietnam-shrimp/AR0708/
vietnam-shrimp-sr-cert-040708.pdf.
    \10\ These exporters are: Cadovimex, CATACO, Stapimex, UTXI, Bac 
Lieu, Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, 
and Thuan Phuoc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, one separate rate company, Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited, 
reported that it is wholly owned by

[[Page 10013]]

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 further separate rates analysis 
is not necessary to determine whether this company is independent from 
government control.\11\ Accordingly, we have preliminarily granted a 
separate rate to Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., 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). See 
also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and 
Final Partial Rescission of the Second Administrative Review 73 FR 
12127 (March 6, 2008), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
52273 (September 9, 2008) (``Vietnam Shrimp AR2'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
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, Camimex, and Phuong Nam 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. Additionally, 25 participating separate rate 
companies/groups\12\ submitted timely separate rate certifications. The 
seven respondents noted in footnote 10 are included in this group of 
25. However, as stated above, the Department will examine the separate-
rate eligibility of those respondents prior to any name or other 
corporate change until a successor-in-interest determination is made 
with respect to the new entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The non-selected respondents of this administrative review 
seeking a separate rate are: Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., Bac Lieu 
Fisheries Company Limited (``Bac Lieu''), Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock 
Company (``SEAPRIMEXCO''), Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and 
Processing Joint Stock Company (``CADOVIMEX''), Cantho Animal 
Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex), Cam Ranh 
Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (``Camranh Seafoods''), Can 
Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company 
(``CATACO''), Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation 
(``COFIDEC''), Cuulong Seaproducts Company (``Cuulong Seapro''), 
Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (``Seaprodex Danang'') 
and affiliate Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company, Grobest 
& I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Investment Commerce 
Fisheries Corporation (``Incomfish''), Minh Hai Export Frozen 
Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (``Minh Hai Jostoco''), Minh 
Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (``Seaprodex Minh 
Hai''), Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise, Nha Trang Fisheries Joint 
Stock Company (``Nha Trang Fisco''), Nha Trang Seaproduct Company 
(``Nha Trang Seafoods''), Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & Import-
Export Co., Ltd., Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (``FIMEX''), Soc 
Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company 
(``Stapimex''), Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation (and 
its affiliates), UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company, Viet 
Foods Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. a/k/a Vietnam Fish One 
Co., Ltd. (Fish One), Vinh Loi Import Export Company (``VIMEX'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This preliminary finding applies to the three mandatory 
respondents of this administrative review: MPG, Camimex, and Phuong 
Nam, and the non-selected respondents eligible for a separate rate 
listed in the preceding footnote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Phuong Nam 
submitted evidence indicating an absence of de facto 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 Phuong Nam, 
and the separate rate companies have established prima facie that they 
qualify for separate rates under the criteria established by Silicon 
Carbide and Sparklers.

Rate for Non-Selected Companies

    Based on timely requests from individual exporters and Petitioner, 
the Department originally initiated this review with respect to 110 
companies/groups. In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, 
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 three 
exporters, MPG, Camimex, and Phuong Nam as mandatory respondents in 
this review. Twenty-five additional companies submitted timely 
information as requested by the Department and remain subject to review 
as cooperative separate rate respondents.
    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 
777A(c)(2) of the Act. The

[[Page 10014]]

Department's practice in this regard, in cases involving limited 
selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of 
trade, has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides 
instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, 
for guidance. Consequently, the Department generally weight-averages 
the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding zero and 
de minimis rates and rates based entirely on adverse facts available 
(``AFA''), and applies that resulting weighted-average margin to non-
selected cooperative separate-rate respondents. See, e.g., Wooden 
Bedroom Furniture From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Results 
of New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 
73 FR 8273 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in final results). 
Consequently, consistent with our practice, we have preliminarily 
established a weighted-average margin for the separate-rate respondents 
based on the rates we calculated for the three mandatory respondents, 
excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on 
AFA. See Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 
Results Simple-Averaged Margin for Separate Rate Respondents, dated 
March 2, 2009. For the Vietnam-wide entity, we have assigned the 
entity's current rate and only rate ever determined for the entity in 
this proceeding.

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 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 
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9 from Irene Gorelik, 
Senior Analyst, Office 9; Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews 
of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, dated March 2, 
2009 (``Factor Valuation Memo'').
    Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of 
potential surrogate countries from the Office of Policy (``OP'').\14\ 
The OP determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, and 
Indonesia were at a comparable level of economic development to 
Vietnam. See Surrogate Country List. The Department considers the five 
countries identified by the OP in its Surrogate Country List as 
``equally comparable in terms of economic development.'' Id. Thus, we 
find that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, and Indonesia are all 
at an economic level of development equally comparable to that of 
Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Acting Director, Office 
of Policy, to Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, AD/CVD 
Enforcement, Office 9: Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater 
Shrimp from Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries, 
dated July 29, 2008 (``Surrogate Country List'') from the OP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, based on publicly available data published by the Food and 
Agricultural Organization (``FAO'') of the United Nations' FishStat 
Database (``FishStat''), we obtained world production data of frozen 
warmwater shrimp. Specifically, the Department has reviewed the data 
from FishStat which shows that Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, 
and Sri Lanka all produce the identical merchandise. See Memorandum to 
the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Re: Third Administrative 
Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Fishstat Data, dated 
March 2, 2009. Therefore, all countries are being considered as an 
appropriate surrogate country for Vietnam because each country produces 
the identical merchandise. Moreover, according to FishStat, in 2005, 
the most recent year for which FishStat export statistics are 
available, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India, are all significant 
producers of comparable merchandise. See id. Though both Pakistan and 
Sri Lanka export frozen shrimp, the quantities they export do not 
qualify them as significant producers of the subject merchandise. As 
Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India are all significant producers of 
comparable merchandise, the Department must look to data considerations 
when choosing the most appropriate surrogate country from among these 
countries.
    With regard to India and Indonesia, the record contains publicly 
available surrogate factor value information for some factors. MPG and 
Camimex provided data for both Indonesia and Bangladesh from a study 
conducted by the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific 
(``NACA''), an intergovernmental organization affiliated with the UN's 
Food and Agriculture Organization (``FAO''). However, unlike the 
Bangladeshi data within the NACA study, the Indonesian shrimp data is 
limited and does not satisfy as many factors of the Department's data 
selection criteria (e.g., broad-market average). Thus, Indonesia is not 
the most appropriate surrogate country for purposes of this review. 
With respect to India, the only shrimp value on the record is ranged 
data obtained from one Indian respondent's data in the current 
administrative review of warmwater shrimp from India, which also does 
not satisfy as many factors of the Department's data selection criteria 
(e.g., public availability, broad-market average).
    The Department's practice when selecting the best available 
information for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, surrogate values 
which are product-specific, representative of a broad market average, 
publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes 
and duties.\15\ As a general matter, the Department prefers to use 
publicly available data representing a broad market average to value 
surrogate values. See id. The Department notes that the value of the 
main input, head-on, shell-on (``HOSO'') shrimp, is a critical factor 
of production in the dumping calculation as it accounts for a 
significant percentage of normal value. Moreover, the ability to value 
shrimp on a count size basis is a significant consideration with 
respect to the data available on the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review 
and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department notes that the mandatory respondents and Petitioner 
submitted count-size specific shrimp data and equally comparable 
surrogate company financial statements from shrimp processors. 
Therefore, availability of count-size specific data or surrogate 
financial ratios on this record is not the determining factor in 
selecting a surrogate country for this review.
    However, the Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study are 
compiled by the UN's FAO from actual pricing records kept by 
Bangladeshi

[[Page 10015]]

farmers, traders, depots, agents, and processors. See Factor Valuation 
Memo. The Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study represent a 
broad-market average and are publicly available, unlike those of the 
single Indian processor. Therefore, with respect to the data 
considerations, because the record contains shrimp values for 
Bangladesh that better meet our selection criteria than the India 
source, we are selecting Bangladesh as the surrogate country.
    In this regard, given the above-cited facts, we find that the 
information on the record shows that Bangladesh is an 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 for surrogate 
valuation purposes.
    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.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 
results of this administrative review, interested parties may submit 
factual information to rebut, clarify, or correct factual 
information submitted by an interested party less than ten days 
before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for submission of such 
factual information. However, the Department notes that 19 CFR 
351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 
clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the record. 
See Glycine from the People's Republic of China: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in 
Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Price

A. Export Price
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated the 
export price (``EP'') for sales to the United States for Camimex and 
Phuong Nam because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made 
before the date of importation and the use of constructed export price 
(``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 in the United States. 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 
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 all three mandatory respondents, see Memorandum to the 
File, through Catherine Bertrand, 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 
March 2, 2009 (``MPG Analysis Memo''); Memorandum to the File, through 
Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Blaine Wiltse, 
Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Phuong Nam Co., Ltd., dated March 2, 
2009 (``Phuong Nam Analysis Memo''); and Memorandum to the File, 
through Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Robert 
Palmer, Analyst, Office 9; Company Analysis Memorandum in the 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Camimex, dated March 2, 
2009 (``Camimex Analysis Memo'').

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

[[Page 10016]]

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 of the Act 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 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 
Conference Report to Accompanying, 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.
    With respect to certain purchases made by all three mandatory 
respondents, the Department noted that the purchase prices for certain 
inputs used to produce subject merchandise were from a country that we 
believe or suspect maintains broadly available, non-industry-specific 
export subsidies. As a result, we have, instead, used a surrogate value 
for those inputs. For further detail, see MPG Analysis Memo, Phuong Nam 
Analysis Memo, and Camimex Analysis Memo.

Raw Shrimp Value

    The Department notes that the mandatory respondents and Petitioner 
submitted Bangladeshi shrimp values with which to value the main input, 
raw shrimp. Phuong Nam submitted Bangladeshi shrimp values obtained 
from a single processor, Apex Foods Limited. Petitioner submitted 
shrimp values based on a survey of several Bangladeshi shrimp 
processors. As stated above, MPG and Camimex submitted data contained 
in the NACA study compiled by the UN's FAO.
    As stated above, the Department's practice when selecting the best 
available information for valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent 
practicable, surrogate values which are product-specific, 
representative of a broad market average, publicly available, 
contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and duties. Phuong 
Nam's submitted shrimp values from Apex Foods Limited, although 
publicly available, are from a single Bangladeshi shrimp producer of 
comparable merchandise, thus does not represent a broad market average 
of prices. Further, with respect to Petitioner's submitted shrimp 
values obtained from a survey of several Bangladeshi shrimp producers, 
we note that the authors of the survey averaged the shrimp prices they 
collected for business confidentiality reasons, thus the underlying 
data are not publicly available.\17\ The Department prefers using 
public data, when available, with which to value the FOPs. See e.g., 
Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final 
Results of New Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 26329 (May 4, 2006) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; see also 
Saccharin from the People's Republic of China: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 
7515 (February 13, 2006) and accompany Issued and Decision Memorandum 
at Comment 5. Therefore, to value the main input, head-on, shell-on 
shrimp, the Department used data contained in the NACA study.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Petitioner's Submission dated February 4, 2009, at 
Attachment I, page 3. See also Vietnam Shrimp AR2 at Comment 2 
(where the Department rejected shrimp surrogate values obtained from 
price quotes or ranged proprietary data).
    \18\ For a detailed explanation of the Department's valuation of 
shrimp, see Factor Valuation Memo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Petitioners filed pre-preliminary results comments 
with respect to the calculation steps required to adjust the HOSO 
shrimp surrogate values to the ``headless, shell-on'' (``HLSO'') shrimp 
consumption reported by the mandatory respondents. Consequently, we 
reviewed the adjustment methodology and concluded that the Department 
has overlooked a calculation step within the methodology in adjusting 
the surrogate value data to the respondents' shrimp consumption data, 
taking into account different bases of reported data. Specifically, the 
surrogate value data is on a HOSO, pieces per kilogram basis, while the 
respondents' data is on a HLSO, pieces per pound basis. The Department 
has added an additional step in the HLSO to HOSO adjustment, such that 
the surrogate value data and shrimp consumption data upon which 
accurate margin calculations rely are on the same bases with respect to 
units of measure and HOSO. See Factor Valuation Memo for a detailed 
description of each step within the conversion methodology.
    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.\19\ The data represents cumulative values for the calendar 
year 2006, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ This can be accessed online at: http://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 POR 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

[[Page 10017]]

International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund.
    Certain surrogate values were calculated using data from the 2005 
Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh, published by the Bangladesh Bureau 
of Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of Planning. The information 
represents cumulative values for the period of 2005. 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 
2007-2008 financial statement of Apex Foods Limited and the 2006-2007 
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, 2007, through January 
31, 2008:

              Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Weighted-Average Margin
           Manufacturer/Exporter                      (Percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPG:Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., akaMinh                   1.66 [percnt]
 Phat Seafood akaMinh Phu Seafood Export
 Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh
 Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat
 Seafood Co., Ltd.) akaMinh Phu Seafood
 Corp. akaMinh Phu Seafood Corporation
 akaMinh Qui Seafood akaMinh Qui Seafood
 Co., Ltd.................................
Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import                     9.84 [percnt]
 Export Corporation (``CAMIMEX''),
 akaCamimex, akaCamau Seafood Factory No.
 4 , akaCamau Seafood Factory No. 5.......
Phuong Nam Co. Ltd., akaPhuong Nam Seafood                 5.46 [percnt]
 Co. Ltd. akaWestern Seafood..............
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd................                 4.26 [percnt]
Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited, akaBac                 4.26 [percnt]
 Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (``Bac
 Lieu'')\20\..............................
Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and                        4.26 [percnt]
 Processing Joint Stock Company
 (``CADOVIMEX'') akaCai Doi Vam Seafood
 Import-Export Company (Cadovimex)\21\....
Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation                    4.26 [percnt]
 (``Cafatex Corp.'') akaCantho Animal
 Fisheries Product Processing Export
 Enterprise (Cafatex), akaCafatex,
 akaCafatex Vietnam, akaXi Nghiep Che Bien
 Thuy Suc San Xuat Khau Can Tho, akaCas,
 akaCas Branch, akaCafatex Saigon,
 akaCafatex Fishery Joint Stock
 Corporation, akaCafatex Corporation,
 akaTaydo Seafood Enterprise..............
Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise                    4.26 [percnt]
 Company (``Camranh Seafoods'') akaCamranh
 Seafoods.................................
Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product                    4.26 [percnt]
 Import Export Company (``CATACO'') akaCan
 Tho Agricultural Products akaCATACO\22\..
Coastal Fishery