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
<![CDATA[
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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,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 https://
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: https://
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: https://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: https://
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 https://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: https://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:
https://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: https://www.unstats.un.org/
unsd/comtrade/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is the Department's practice to calculate price index adjustors
to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate values that are not
contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index (``WPI'')
for the subject country. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination:
Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of
China, 69 FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). However, in this case, a WPI was not
available for Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly available
information contemporaneous with the 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
