Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 9983-9991 [E9-4916]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 44 (Monday, March 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9983-9991]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4916]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-331-802


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: 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 frozen 
warmwater shrimp from Ecuador with respect to 81 companies. The 
respondents which the Department selected for individual examination 
are Promarisco, S.A. (Promarisco) and Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos, 
S.A. (Songa). The respondents which were not selected for individual 
examination are listed in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section 
of this notice. This is the third administrative review of this order. 
The period of review (POR) covers February 1, 2007, through August 14, 
2007.
    We preliminarily determine that sales made to the United States by 
Promarisco and Songa have been made below normal value (NV). In 
addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected 
for individual examination, we have determined a preliminary weighted-
average margin for those companies that were not individually examined.
    If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009.

[[Page 9984]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration-Room 1117, 
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: 
(202) 482-4136 or (202) 482-3773, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
Ecuador. See Notice of Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty 
Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, 70 FR 5156 
(February 1, 2005). On February 4, 2008, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen 
warmwater shrimp from Ecuador for the period February 1, 2007, through 
August 14, 2007.\1\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Order, 
Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 2008). In response to 
timely requests from interested parties, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1) and (2), to conduct an administrative review of the sales 
of certain frozen warmwater shrimp made by numerous companies during 
the POR, the Department initiated an administrative review for 81 
companies. These companies are listed in the Department's notice of 
initiation. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, 
India, and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews, 73 
FR 18754 (April 7, 2008) (Notice of Initiation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The antidumping duty order was revoked with an effective 
date of August 15, 2007. See Implementation of the Findings of the 
WTO Panel in United States Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from 
Ecuador: Notice of Determination Under section 129 of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act and Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, 72 FR 48257 (August 23, 2007) 
(Section 129 Final Results). Accordingly, this administrative review 
covers the period prior to the effective revocation date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based upon the resources available to the Department, we determined 
that it was not practicable to examine all exporters/producers of 
subject merchandise for which a review was requested. As a result, on 
May 27, 2008, we selected the two largest producers/exporters of 
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador during the POR, Promarisco 
and Songa, for individual examination in this segment of the 
proceeding. See Memorandum entitled, ``2007 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: 
Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated May 27, 2008. 
On June 2, 2008, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to 
Promarisco and Songa. In addition, we instructed Promarisco to respond 
to section D of the questionnaire because we had disregarded sales by 
Promarisco made below the cost of production (COP) in the most recently 
completed segment of this proceeding. See ``Cost of Production 
Analysis'' section below.
    We received responses to sections A, B, and C of the questionnaire 
from Promarisco and Songa in July and August 2008. We also received a 
response to section D of the questionnaire from Promarisco in August 
2008.
    On August 18, 2008, the petitioner requested that the Department 
initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Songa. On September 22, 
2008, we initiated this investigation. See Memorandum entitled ``The 
Petitioner's Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Songa 
S.A.,'' dated October 30, 2007 (Songa COP Initiation Memo). On that 
date, we instructed Songa to respond to section D of the Department's 
questionnaire. Songa submitted its response to section D of the 
questionnaire on October 27, 2008.
    During the period of July to September 2008, the petitioner 
submitted general comments regarding the selection of the appropriate 
comparison market in this review with regard to Promarisco and Songa. 
In September 2008, Promarisco and Songa responded to these comments.
    In October 2008, we determined that Spain constitutes the 
appropriate comparison market for Promarisco and Songa in this review. 
See Memorandum entitled ``Selection of the Appropriate Third Country 
Market for Promarisco,'' dated October 24, 2008 (Promarisco Comparison 
Market Memo), and Memorandum entitled ``Selection of the Appropriate 
Third Country Market for Songa,'' dated October 6, 2008 (Songa 
Comparison Market Memo).
    On October 8, 2008, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results in this review until no later than March 2, 2009. See Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador, India, the People's Republic of 
China, and Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the 
Preliminary Results of the Third Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 58931 
(October 8, 2008).
    During the period July 2008 through February 2009, we issued 
supplemental questionnaires to Promarisco and Songa. We received 
responses to these supplemental questionnaires during the period August 
2008 through February 2009.
    We conducted a verification of Promarisco's sales data in December 
2008, and verifications of Promarisco's and Songa's COP data in January 
and February 2009, respectively.

Scope of the Order

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

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

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the 
scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed 
from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in 
any count size.
    The products described above may be processed from any species of 
warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally 
classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 
examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but 
are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 
(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river 
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), 
redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp 
(Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern 
rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp 
(Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white 
shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 
indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food 
preparations, which are not ``prepared meals,'' that contain more than 
20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope 
of this order.
    Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 
subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp

[[Page 9985]]

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

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2007, through August 14, 2007.

Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) 
provides that the Department will apply ``facts otherwise available'' 
if, inter alia, necessary information is not available on the record or 
an interested party: 1) withholds information that has been requested 
by the Department; 2) fails to provide such information within the 
deadlines established, or in the form or manner requested by the 
Department, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the 
Act; 3) significantly impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides such 
information, but the information cannot be verified. During the 
verification of Promarisco's sales data, we found that Promarisco had 
failed to report in its questionnaire response the full range of 
payment terms or arrangements applicable to its sales during the POR, 
as requested in the Department's questionnaire. In its questionnaire 
response, Promarisco reported one payment date for each sale, and 
stated that the date represented the date of customer payment. However, 
we found that, for several sales examined at verification, Promarisco 
had obtained cash advances from its banks for most, if not all, of the 
invoiced amounts prior to the receipt of the customer's payment. In 
other cases, the customer paid the invoiced amount in multiple partial 
payments. Neither of these payment arrangements was identified for the 
record prior to verification, and we did not discover them until we 
examined several sales at verification. Promarisco did not indicate or 
explain why it was not possible to provide this information prior to 
verification. Moreover, at the commencement of verification, Promarisco 
presented a list of corrected payment dates for certain sales. However, 
most of the actual payment dates for the sales examined at verification 
did not match the reported payment dates, as revised at the 
commencement of verification. See Memorandum entitled ``Verification of 
the Sales Questionnaire Response of Promarisco S.A. in the Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
Ecuador,'' dated February 10, 2008 (Promarisco Sales Verification 
Report) at pages 15 - 20.
    Due to the fact that Promarisco did not disclose these payment 
arrangements prior to verification and the time constraints at 
verification, we were unable to determine the full impact of these 
sales payment discrepancies across the entire U.S. and Spanish sales 
databases. Moreover, the large number of such discrepancies discovered 
among the sales examined at verification undermines the reliability of 
the reported payment information for the remaining sales not 
specifically examined at verification. Additionally, these 
discrepancies affect the calculation of imputed credit expenses. For 
these reasons, we find that it is appropriate to resort to facts 
otherwise available to account for the unreported information. See 
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
Rescission of Administrative Review in Part, and Final Determination to 
Not Revoke Order in Part: Canned Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, 68 FR 
65247 (November 19, 2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 20b (where the Department applied facts otherwise 
available to a respondent that did not provide requested information). 
Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the date of payment 
and imputed credit expenses for Promarisco's U.S. and Spanish sales 
should be based on facts available in accordance with section 
776(a)(2)(B) and section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act.
    In selecting from among the facts otherwise available, section 
776(b) of the Act authorizes the Department to use an adverse inference 
if the Department finds that an interested party failed to cooperate by 
not acting to the best of its ability to comply with the request for 
information. See, e.g., Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 
54025-26 (September 13, 2005); see also Notice of Final Determination 
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 
Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 
FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). The Statement of Administrative 
Action provides guidance by explaining that adverse inferences are 
appropriate ``to ensure that the party does not obtain a more favorable 
result by failing to cooperate than if it had cooperated fully.'' See 
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994). 
Furthermore, ``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a 
respondent is not required before the Department may make an adverse 
inference.'' See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 
62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. 
United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Nippon). Because: 
1) Promarisco had the necessary information within its control and it 
did not report this information; and 2) it failed to put forth its 
maximum effort as required by the Department's questionnaire, we 
preliminarily find that Promarisco failed to cooperate to the best of 
its ability. Therefore, for the preliminary results we are using facts 
available with an adverse inference to determine imputed credit 
expenses. Specifically, with respect to all U.S. sales, we are 
calculating imputed credit expenses based on the longest period between 
shipment date and payment date either reported in the U.S. sales 
database, or observed at verification. With respect to all Spanish 
sales, we are

[[Page 9986]]

calculating imputed credit expenses based on the shortest period 
between shipment date and payment date either reported in the Spanish 
sales database, or observed at verification. See Memorandum entitled 
``Promarisco S.A. Preliminary Results Notes and Margin Calculation,'' 
dated March 2, 2009 (Promarisco Sales Calculation Memo).

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp by 
Promarisco and Songa to the United States were made at less than NV, we 
compared export price (EP) to the NV, as described in the ``Export 
Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign 
like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of 
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section 
below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Promarisco and Songa covered by the description in 
the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products 
for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. 
sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales of 
shrimp to sales of shrimp made to Spain for Promarisco and Songa within 
the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months 
prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. 
See ``Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets'' 
section below. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in 
the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare 
to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 
foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there 
were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the comparison 
market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, 
we made product comparisons using constructed value (CV).
    In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by Promarisco and Songa 
in the following order: cooked form, head status, count size, organic 
certification, shell status, vein status, tail status, other shrimp 
preparation, frozen form, flavoring, container weight, presentation, 
species, and preservative.
    With respect to sales comparisons involving broken shrimp, we 
compared Promarisco's and Songa's sales of broken shrimp in the United 
States to its sales of comparable quality shrimp in the comparison 
market. Where there were no sales of identical broken shrimp in the 
comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to 
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales of broken shrimp to sales of the 
most similar broken shrimp made in the ordinary course of trade. Where 
there were no sales of identical or similar broken shrimp, we made 
product comparisons using CV.
    With respect to the product characteristic of count size, Songa 
requests in its February 10, 2009, submission that the Department 
modify the reporting of count-size ranges for certain head-on shrimp 
products. Songa notes that the Department's methodology for converting 
products sold on a per-kilogram basis to the per-pound count-size 
ranges specified in the Department's questionnaire results in two 
distinct per-kilogram count-size ranges being classified into the same 
per-pound count-size range. According to Songa, this grouping results 
in significant price distortions when comparing products. To reduce 
these distortions, Songa proposes that one of the two affected groups 
of products be reclassified into the next larger count-size range.
    We have not accepted Songa's proposed revision. As we explained in 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 39940 (July 
11, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 
2, ``{o{time} ur normal practice is to consider proposed changes to 
product-matching criteria in the very early stages of a proceeding, to 
allow adequate time for all parties to comment on such proposed changes 
and for the Department to properly analyze them before making a 
determination.'' Moreover, issues involving product-matching 
characteristics, including classifications within a given 
characteristic, cannot be analyzed only in the context of one 
respondent's reported data, as they have the potential to impact other 
respondents in this segment of the proceeding and the current segments 
of the companion proceedings involving shrimp from India, the People's 
Republic of China, Thailand, and Vietnam. In this case, as noted above, 
Songa did not raise this matter until February 10, 2009, less than a 
month prior to these preliminary results, and more than eight months 
after the antidumping duty questionnaire was issued in this review 
(i.e., June 2, 2008). Accordingly, there is insufficient time remaining 
in this and the companion shrimp reviews to solicit and consider 
comments on the change to the count-size product characteristic 
proposed by Songa, as well as to obtain and analyze any revised sales 
and COP data that may be necessary.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Songa and Promarisco, we applied the EP 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold by the producer/exporter outside of the 
United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States prior to importation and constructed export price (CEP) 
methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.

A. Promarisco

    We based EP on delivered, duty-paid (DDP) prices to the first 
unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. We made deductions to the 
starting price for billing adjustments, foreign inland freight 
expenses, bill of lading fees, ocean freight expenses, marine insurance 
expenses, U.S. customs duties (including merchandise processing and 
harbor maintenance fees), U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and 
U.S. warehousing expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made various minor revisions to the reported U.S. sales data, as 
identified by Promarisco in its December 17, 2008, submission and 
verified by the Department. See Promarisco Sales Verification Report.
    Promarisco reported bill of lading fees as part of its indirect 
selling expense calculation. These fees are more appropriately 
classified as movement expenses, as they are associated with the 
shipment of the subject merchandise to the United States. We 
recalculated the bill of lading fees as separate movement expenses, 
based on information obtained during verification. See Promarisco Sales 
Calculation Memo.
    Although Promarisco did not report that it granted any billing 
adjustments during the POR, we observed at verification that billing 
adjustments were made on certain U.S. sales. We calculated the billing 
adjustments for these sales based on information obtained at 
verification, and took them into account in our calculation of the net 
U.S. price, where appropriate. See Promarisco Sales Calculation Memo.

[[Page 9987]]

B. Songa

    We based EP on C&F or DDP prices to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments 
to the starting price for billing adjustments. We made deductions to 
the starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight 
expenses, foreign inland insurance, Ecuadorian brokerage and handling 
expenses, ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. 
customs duties (including merchandise processing and harbor maintenance 
fees), and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    In the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation segment of this 
proceeding, the Department determined that a particular market 
situation existed which rendered the Ecuadorian market inappropriate 
for purposes of determining NV for the three respondents in the LTFV 
investigation, including Promarisco. See Memorandum entitled ``Home 
Market as Appropriate Comparison Market,'' dated June 7, 2004, as 
included at Exhibit A-2 of Promarisco's July 24, 2008, response to 
section A of the questionnaire. Promarisco reported that the particular 
market situation still applies to its home market sales and there is no 
information on the record to suggest otherwise. Accordingly, although 
the aggregate volume of Promarisco's home market sales of the foreign 
like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate volume of 
U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, because of the particular 
market situation, we could not rely on Promarisco's home market sales 
for determining NV. Therefore, we used Promarisco's sales to Spain, 
Promarisco's largest third-country market, as the basis for comparison-
market sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.404. See Promarisco Comparison Market Memo, for a more detailed 
discussion of this issue.
    Furthermore, based on our analysis of Songa's questionnaire 
responses, we determined that Songa's aggregate volume of home market 
sales of the foreign like product was insufficient to permit a proper 
comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise.\3\ Therefore, 
with respect to Songa, we used sales to Spain, which was Songa's 
largest third-country market during the POR, as the basis for 
comparison-market sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.404. See Songa Comparison Market Memo, for a more 
detailed discussion of this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because Songa's sales in the home market did not meet the 
viability threshold, it was unnecessary to address whether a 
particular market situation existed with respect to such sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. See 
id; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order 
to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in 
the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 
system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution), including 
selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level 
of selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison-market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third-country prices),\4\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Where NV is based on constructed value (CV), we determine 
the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive 
selling expenses, general and administrative (SG&A) expenses, and 
profit for CV, where possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison-market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison-market, where available data make it practicable, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732-
33.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from each 
respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the 
reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of 
distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below.

1. Promarisco

    Promarisco made direct sales of frozen warmwater shrimp to 
retailers, food processors, restaurant chains, and distributors in the 
U.S. market, and food processors and distributors in the Spanish 
market. Promarisco reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market on 
a DDP basis through one channel of distribution. We examined the 
selling activities performed for this channel, and found that 
Promarisco performed the following selling functions: sales 
forecasting, sales promotion, order input/processing, freight and 
delivery, and claim services. These selling activities can be generally 
grouped into two selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and 
marketing (e.g., order input/processing, sales promotion, claim 
services); and 2) freight and delivery. Accordingly, we find that 
Promarisco performed the selling functions of sales and marketing, and 
freight and delivery for all customers in the U.S. market. Because all 
sales in the U.S. market are made through a single distribution 
channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. 
market.
    With respect to the Spanish market, Promarisco reported that it 
made sales on an FOB, CIF, or CFR basis through one channel of 
distribution. We examined the selling activities performed for this 
channel, and found that Promarisco performed the following selling 
functions: sales forecasting, sales promotion, order input/processing,

[[Page 9988]]

payment of commissions, freight and delivery, and claim services. These 
selling activities can be generally grouped into two selling function 
categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing (e.g., order input/
processing, sales promotion, claim services); and 2) freight and 
delivery. Accordingly, we find that Promarisco performed sales and 
marketing for all Spanish sales, and freight and delivery services for 
certain Spanish sales. We do not find that the provision of freight and 
delivery services for some sales is sufficient to distinguish it as a 
separate LOT. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is one 
LOT in the Spanish market.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the comparison-market LOT and 
found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and Spanish market 
customers are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that sales 
to the U.S. and Spanish markets during the POR were made at the same 
LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted.

2. Songa

    Songa sold frozen warmwater shrimp to distributors and wholesalers 
in the Spanish and U.S. markets. Songa reported that it made EP sales 
in the U.S. market through a single channel of distribution. We 
examined the selling activities performed for this channel, and found 
that Songa performed the following selling functions: packing, order 
input/processing, sales promotion, payment of commissions, and freight 
and delivery arrangements. These selling activities can be generally 
grouped into two selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and 
marketing (e.g., order input/processing, sales promotion); and 2) 
freight and delivery. Accordingly, we find that Songa performed the 
same sales functions for all customers in the U.S. market. Because all 
sales in the U.S. market are made through a single distribution 
channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. 
market.
    With respect to the Spanish market, Songa reported that it made 
sales through a single channel of distribution. We examined the selling 
activities performed for this channel, and found that Songa performed 
the following selling functions: packing, order input/processing, sales 
promotion, payment of commissions, and freight and delivery 
arrangements. These selling activities can be generally grouped into 
two selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing 
(e.g., order input/processing, sales promotion); and 2) freight and 
delivery. Accordingly, we find that Songa performed the same sales 
functions for all customers in the Spanish market. Because all sales in 
the Spanish market are made through a single distribution channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the Spanish market.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the comparison-market LOT and 
found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and Spanish market 
customers are identical. Therefore, we determined that sales to the 
U.S. and Spanish markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and 
as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegation, we found that 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Songa's sales 
of frozen warmwater shrimp in the third-country market were made at 
prices below their COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the 
Act, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether 
Songa's sales were made at prices below their respective COPs. See 
Songa COP Initiation Memo.

Calculation of Cost of Production

    We found that Promarisco had made sales below the COP in the 2004-
2006 administrative review, the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding as of the date this administrative review was initiated, and 
such sales were disregarded. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
Ecuador: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 10658 (March 9, 2007); unchanged in 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52070 (September 12, 
2007). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, 
there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Promarisco made 
sales in the third-country market at prices below the cost of producing 
the merchandise in the current review period. Accordingly, we 
instructed Promarisco to respond to section D (cost of production) of 
the questionnaire.
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated each 
respondent's COP based on the sum of its costs of materials and 
conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for general and 
administrative (G&A) expenses and interest expenses (see ``Test of 
Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section below for treatment of third-
country selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data 
submitted by each respondent in its most recent supplemental response 
to section D of the questionnaire for the COP calculation, except for 
the following instances where the information was not appropriately 
quantified or valued.

A. Promarisco

    We relied on the COP data submitted by Promarisco except as 
follows.
1. We recalculated Promarisco's G&A and financial expense ratios to 
reflect the reclassification of write-offs of affiliated party 
transactions, and certain miscellaneous income and expenses.
2. We recalculated the financial expense ratio to exclude long-term 
interest income and certain selling expenses.
For additional details, see Memorandum entitled ``Cost of Production 
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results - Promarisco, S.A.,'' dated March 2, 2009.

B. Songa

    We relied on the COP data submitted by Songa except as follows.
1. We revised Songa's fixed overhead costs to include the depreciation 
expense related to the revaluation of fixed assets.
2. We revised Songa's G&A expense rate to include employee profit 
sharing costs and to reverse the claimed offset for duty drawback 
income.
3. We revised Songa's financial expense rate to include the 
amortization of exchange rate loss and the amortization of export 
certificates.
For additional details, see Memorandum entitled ``Cost of Production 
and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary 
Results - Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos S.A.,'' dated March 2, 2009.

Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the third-country sales of the foreign like product, as 
required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to determine whether 
the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this comparison, we 
used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The prices 
(inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were exclusive of 
any applicable movement charges, and direct and indirect selling 
expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate, as discussed 
below under the ``Price-to-Price Comparisons'' section.

Results of the COP Test

    In determining whether to disregard third-country sales made at 
prices

[[Page 9989]]

below the COP, we examine, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and 
(B) or the Act: 1) whether, within an extended period of time, such 
sales were made in substantial quantities; and 2) whether such sales 
were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a 
reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less 
than 20 percent of the respondent's third-country sales of a given 
product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-
cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances 
the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time 
and in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we disregard the below-cost sales because: 1) they were made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and 2) based on our 
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they 
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of Promarisco's and Songa's third-country sales were at prices less 
than the COP and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the 
recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. We therefore 
excluded these sales and used the remaining sales as the basis for 
determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no 
useable third country sales in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared EPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. 
See ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section 
below.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison-Market Prices

1. Promarisco

    We calculated NV based on CIF, CFR or FOB prices to unaffiliated 
customers in the Spanish market. We made adjustments to the starting 
price for billing adjustments. We made deductions from the starting 
price for movement expenses, including inland freight, bill of lading 
fees, marine insurance, and international freight, under section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the
    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale (COS) 
for imputed credit expenses, commissions, and analysis and inspection 
fees.
    We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for 
indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales 
where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the 
other. Specifically, as commissions were granted in the Spanish market 
but not in the U.S. market, we deducted commissions paid in the Spanish 
market from the starting price, and made an upward adjustment to NV for 
the lesser of 1) the amount of commission paid in the Spanish market, 
or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the U.S. 
market.
    We made various minor revisions to the reported Spanish sales data, 
as identified by Promarisco in its December 17, 2008 submission and 
verified by the Department. See Promarisco Sales Verification Report.
    Although Promarisco did not report that it granted any billing 
adjustments during the POR, we observed at verification that billing 
adjustments were made on certain Spanish sales. We calculated the 
billing adjustments for these sales based on information obtained at 
verification, and took them into account in our calculation of NV, 
where appropriate. See Promarisco Sales Calculation Memo.
    Promarisco reported bill of lading fees as part of its indirect 
selling expense calculation. These fees are more appropriately 
classified as movement expenses, as they are associated with the 
shipment of the subject merchandise to Spain. We recalculated the bill 
of lading fees as separate movement expenses based on information 
obtained during verification. See Promarisco Sales Calculation Memo.
    Promarisco did not include analysis and inspection fees associated 
with U.S. and comparison-market sales in its sales databases. We 
calculated these fees as direct selling expenses, based on information 
obtained during verification. See Promarisco Sales Calculation Memo.
    Promarisco reported indirect selling expenses inclusive of bill of 
lading fees. Because we have calculated the bill of lading fees 
separately, as discussed above, we recalculated indirect selling 
expenses exclusive of these fees. See Promarisco Sales Calculation 
Memo.
    As discussed in the ``Facts Available'' section above, we relied on 
facts available with an adverse inference to determine Promarisco's 
imputed credit expense for U.S. and Spanish sales. Specifically, with 
respect to U.S. sales, we calculated imputed credit expenses based on 
the longest period between shipment date and payment date either 
reported in the U.S. sales database, or observed at verification. With 
respect to Spanish sales, we calculated imputed credit expenses based 
on the shortest period between shipment date and payment date either 
reported in the Spanish sales database, or observed at verification. 
For those U.S. sales for which Promarisco had not received payment as 
of the sales verification, we calculated imputed credit expenses using 
the date of the first day of the sales verification, December 15, 2008, 
as the date of payment.
    We also deducted comparison-market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the 
Act.

2. Songa

    We based NV for Songa on FOB or C&F prices to unaffiliated 
customers in Spain. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the 
starting price for billing adjustments. We made deductions to the 
starting price, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight expenses, 
foreign inland insurance, Ecuadorian brokerage and handling expenses, 
and ocean freight expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in COS for imputed credit 
expenses, bank fees, analysis and inspection fees, and commissions.
    We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for 
indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales 
where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the 
other. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market 
but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV 
for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; 
or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the 
comparison market. If the commissions were granted in the comparison 
market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment

[[Page 9990]]

to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the 
comparison market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses 
incurred in the U.S. market.
    We also deducted comparison market packing costs and added U.S. 
packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the 
Act.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for 
those frozen warmwater shrimp products for which we could not determine 
the NV based on comparison-market sales because there were no useable 
sales of a comparable product or all sales of comparable products 
failed the COP test, we based NV on CV.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on 
the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. For each respondent, we calculated the cost of materials and 
fabrication based on the methodology described in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section, above. We based SG&A and profit for each 
respondent on the actual amounts incurred and realized by the 
respondents in connection with the production and sale of the foreign 
like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in the 
comparison market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in COS in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 
we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred 
on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling 
expenses to, CV, revised where appropriate, as discussed above.

Currency Conversion

    We did not make any currency conversions pursuant to section 773A 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 because all sales and cost data for both 
respondents were reported in U.S. dollars.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2007, through 
August 14, 2007, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promarisco, S.A.....................................                2.00
Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A. (Songa).........                2.20
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the
 Following Companies:\5\............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ this rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated
  for those companies selected for individual examination, excluding de
  minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricola e Industrial Ecuaplantation SA.............                2.09
Agrol SA............................................                2.09
Alberto Xavier Mosquera Rosado......................                2.09
Alquimia Marina SA..................................                2.09
Babychic SA.........................................                2.09
Biolife SA..........................................                2.09
Braistar............................................                2.09
Camaronera Jenn Briann..............................                2.09
Camarones...........................................                2.09
Comar Cia Ltda......................................                2.09
Doblertel SA........................................                2.09
Dumary SA...........................................                2.09
Dunci SA............................................                2.09
El Rosario Ersa SA..................................                2.09
Empacadora Bilbo SA (Bilbosa).......................                2.09
Empacadora del Pacifico SA (EDPACIF SA).............                2.09
Empacadora Dufer Cia. Ltda. (DUFER).................                2.09
Empacadora Grupo Gran Mar (Empagran) SA.............                2.09
Empacadora Nacional CA..............................                2.09
Empacadora y Exportadora Calvi Cia. Ltda............                2.09
Emprede SA..........................................                2.09
Estar CA............................................                2.09
Exporclam SA........................................                2.09
Exporklore SA.......................................                2.09
Exportadora Bananera Noboa..........................                2.09
Exportadora de Productos de Mar (Produmar)..........                2.09
Exportadora del Oceano (Oceanexa) CA................                2.09
Exportadora Langosmar SA............................                2.09
Exportadora del Oceano Pacifico SA (OCEANPAC).......                2.09
Exports Langosmar SA................................                2.09
Fortumar Ecuador SA.................................                2.09
Gambas del Pacifico SA 2.09.........................
Gondi SA............................................                2.09
Hector Canino Marty.................................                2.09
Hectorosa SA........................................                2.09
Industrial Pesquera Santa Priscila SA (Santa                        2.09
 Priscila)..........................................
Inepexa SA..........................................                2.09
Jorge Luis Benitez Lopez............................                2.09
Karpicorp SA........................................                2.09
Luis Loaiza Alvarez.................................                2.09
Mardex Cia. Ltda.,/ENT>.............................                2.09
Marine..............................................                2.09
Marines CA..........................................                2.09
Mariscos de Chupadores Chupamar.....................                2.09
Mariscos del Ecuador C. Ltda. (Marecuador)..........                2.09
Natural Select SA...................................                2.09
Negocios Industriales Real Nirsa SA (NIRSA).........                2.09
Novapesca SA........................................                2.09
Ocean Fish..........................................                2.09
Oceaninvest SA......................................                2.09
Oceanmundo SA.......................................                2.09
Oceanpro SA.........................................                2.09
Operadora y Procesadora de Productos Marinos SA                     2.09
 (Omarsa)...........................................
Oyerly SA...........................................                2.09
P.C. Seafood SA.....................................                2.09
Pacfish SA..........................................                2.09
PCC Congelados &Frescos SA..........................                2.09
Pescazul SA.........................................                2.09
Peslasa SA..........................................                2.09
Phillips Seafoods of Ecuador CA (Phillips)..........                2.09
Pisacua SA..........................................                2.09
Procesadora del Rio SA (Proriosa)...................                2.09
Productos Cultivados del Mar Proc...................                2.09
Productos Cultivados del Mar Proculmar Cia. Ltda....                2.09
Productos del Mar Santa Rosa Cia. Ltda. (Promarosa).                2.09
Propemar SA.........................................                2.09
Provefrut...........................................                2.09
Rommy Roxana Alvarez Anchundia......................                2.09
Sea Pronto Hector Marty Canino (Sea Pronto).........                2.09
Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico SA......................                2.09
Soitgar SA..........................................                2.09
Studmark SA.........................................                2.09
Tecnica y Comercio de la Pesca CA (TECOPESCA).......                2.09
Tolyp SA............................................                2.09
Trans Ocean.........................................                2.09
Transcity SA........................................                2.09
Transmarina CA......................................                2.09
Transocean Ecuador SA...............................                2.09
Uniline Transport System............................                2.09
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in

[[Page 9991]]

connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date 
of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested 
parties may submit case briefs not later than 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 
351.309(d)(1). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 
this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: 1) a 
statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a 
table of authorities.
    Interested parties, who wish to request a hearing or to participate 
if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant 
Secretary for Import Administration, HCHB Room 1870, within 30 days of 
the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: 1) the 
party's name, address and telephone number; 2) the number of 
participants; and 3) a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 
351.310(c). Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs.
    The Department will issue the final results of this administrative 
review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any 
written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication 
of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this 
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review.
    Regarding Promarisco, because it reported the entered value of all 
of its U.S. sales, we will calculate an importer-specific ad valorem 
duty assessment rate based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the examined sales for that importer. We will 
calculate a single importer-specific assessment rate for Promarisco, 
consistent with our practice in AR2 Final Results; see also Ball 
Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and 
Singapore: Final Results of the Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 
Rescission of Administrative Review in part, and Determination Not to 
Revoke Order in Part, 68 FR 35623 (June 16, 2003), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 9B; Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review: Certain Softwood 
Lumber Products From Canada, 69 FR 75921 (December 20, 2004), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 13.
    Regarding Songa, because it reported the entered value of all of 
its U.S. sales, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
the examined sales for that importer.
    For the responsive companies which were not selected for individual 
examination, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted 
average of the margin rates calculated for the companies selected for 
individual examination excluding any which are de minimis or determined 
entirely on AFA.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific or 
customer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of 
this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate 
without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the 
assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The final 
results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of 
antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final 
results of this review.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these 
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know 
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the all-others rate in effect during the POR 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

    On August 15, 2007, in accordance with sections 129(b)(4) and 
129(c)(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), the U.S. Trade 
Representative, after consulting with the Department and Congress, 
directed the Department to implement its determination to revoke the 
antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. 
See Section 129 Final Results. Accordingly, the antidumping duty order 
on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador was revoked effective 
August 15, 2007. As a result, the collection of cash deposits of 
antidumping duties on entries of the subject merchandise is no longer 
required.

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 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.

    March 2, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-4916 Filed 3-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S