Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 9991-10000 [E9-4920]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 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. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 9991 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 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–533–840 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission 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 (shrimp) from E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 9992 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES India with respect to 170 companies.1 The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are Devi Sea Foods Limited (Devi) and Falcon Marine Exports Limited (Falcon). The respondents which were not selected for individual review 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) is February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. We preliminarily determine that sales made by Devi have not been made at below normal value (NV), while those made by Falcon have. In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for individual review, we have preliminarily determined a margin for those companies that the Department did not select for individual review. 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. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond, AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3874 or (202) 482– 0049, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 2005) (Shrimp Order). 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 of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India 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 (Feb. 4, 2008). In response to timely requests from interested parties pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and 1 This figure does not include those companies for which the Department is rescinding the administrative review. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 (2) to conduct an administrative review of the U.S. sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp by numerous producers/exporters, the Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review for 336 companies. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 18754, 18757–18762 (Apr. 7, 2008) (Initiation Notice). In our initiation notice we indicated that we would select mandatory respondents for review based upon CBP entry data, and that we would limit the respondents selected for individual review in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 18765. In April 2008, we received comments on the issue of respondent selection from Devi, Falcon, and the petitioner.2 In April and May 2008, we received statements from 18 companies that indicated that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. In May 2008, after considering 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, we selected the two largest producers/exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India during the POR (i.e., Devi and Falcon) for individual review in this segment of this proceeding (see the May 27, 2008, Memorandum to James Maeder from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, ‘‘2007– 2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review’’), and we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to them. In July 2008 we received responses from Devi and Falcon to section A of the questionnaire (i.e., the section related to general information), as well as to sections B and C (i.e., the sections covering comparison market and U.S. sales, respectively) and D (i.e., the section covering cost of production (COP)). Also in July 2008, the petitioner submitted comments regarding the appropriate third–country comparison market for Falcon, and it withdrew its review requests for 144 companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). In September 2008, we selected Japan as the third country comparison market for Falcon. For a discussion, see the 2 The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 September 3, 2008, memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ CVD Operations from the team entitled, ‘‘2007–2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India – Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Market for Falcon Marine Exports Limited’’ (Third Country Market Memo). As Devi had only one viable comparison market, Canada, no further market selection process was necessary for Devi. Also in September 2008, we requested that Falcon provide additional information regarding its relationship with an affiliated shrimp producer, KR Enterprises, in order to determine whether it was appropriate to collapse these two companies (i.e., treat them as a single entity) for purposes of our analysis. In addition, we issued a supplemental questionnaire covering section D to Devi, as well as supplemental questionnaires covering sections A and D to Falcon. On October 8, 2008, the Department postponed the preliminary results in this review until no later than March 2, 2008. 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 (Oct. 8, 2008). In October 2008, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires covering sections A through C for Devi and sections B and C for Falcon. In October and November 2008, Devi and Falcon responded to these supplemental questionnaires, as well as to the supplemental questionnaires issued in September 2008, and Falcon also provided the additional information requested by the Department with respect to its relationship with KR Enterprises. Also in October 2008, the Department issued a memorandum indicating that it intended to rescind the administrative review with respect to 168 respondent companies, and it invited comments on this action from interested parties. See the October 16, 2008 memorandum to the file from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, ‘‘Intent to Rescind in Part the 2007–2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India’’ (Intent to Rescind Memo). In response, the Department received comments from: 1) Ananda Aqua Exports (AAE), Ananda Foods (AF), and Ananda Aqua Applications (AAA) (collectively, the ‘‘Ananda Group’’) objecting to the rescission with respect to AF and AAA; 2) Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices confirming the proper address for that company; 3) 32 U.S. producers opposing the rescission with respect to 144 companies for which the petitioner withdrew its review request; and 4) the petitioner objecting to the opposition by the 32 U.S. producers. In November 2008, the Department requested, and received, information regarding the relationship among the Ananda Group during the POR, in order to permit the Department to perform a collapsing analysis. In December 2008, we published a notice rescinding the administrative review with respect to 166 companies,3 based on the following reasons: 1) timely withdrawals of the review requests; 2) confirmed statements of no shipments during the POR; and/or 3) duplicated names and/or addresses in our notice of initiation. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610 (Dec. 19, 2008) (Partial Rescission Notice). See also the Intent to Rescind Memo. In rescinding the review with respect to the companies for which the petitioner withdrew its review request, we disregarded the 32 U.S. producers’ opposition because the underlying review requests were made on behalf of the petitioner, and not on behalf of any individual U.S. producer. See Partial Rescission Notice, 73 FR at 77612. From December 2008 through January 2009, we conducted a sales verification of Devi’s U.S. affiliate, Devi Seafoods, Inc., as well as sales and cost verifications of Devi and Falcon. In February 2009, we requested that AAE provide additional information about its ownership in order to facilitate the Department’s collapsing analysis. Also in this month, we determined that it was appropriate to collapse Falcon and its affiliate KR Enterprises, and thus we are treating these companies as the same entity for purposes of this proceeding. For further discussion, see the February 19, 2009, memorandum from The Team to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, entitled, ‘‘Whether to Collapse KR Enterprises and Falcon Marine Exports Limited in the 2007– 2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India’’ (Falcon Collapsing Memo). In February 2009, at the request of the Department, Falcon submitted revised U.S. and third country sales databases. 3 The Department did not rescind this review with respect to the two Ananda Group Companies listed in the Intent to Rescind Memo, based on their objection. For further discussion see the ‘‘Collapsing Certain Respondents’’ section of this notice. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 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,4 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 (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 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. 4 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 9993 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. Partial Rescission of Review As noted above, on April 7, 2008, the Department initiated this review with respect to 336 companies. With respect to two of these companies, Asvini Fisheries Limited and Surya Marine Exports, we stated that we intended to rescind the review for these two companies if we found in the final results of the 2006–2007 administrative review that these companies are the successors–in-interest to two additional Indian shrimp exporters included in this review. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 18761–18762. In the final results of the 2006–2007 administrative review, we found Asvini Fisheries Private Limited to be the successor–in-interest to Asvini Fisheries Limited and found Suryamitra Exim (P) Ltd. to be the successor–in-interest to Surya Marine Exports. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 40492, 40493–40494 (July 15, 2008) (2006–2007 Final Results). Accordingly, consistent with our stated intention in our Initiation Notice, we are rescinding this administrative review with respect to Asvini Fisheries Limited and Surya Marine Exports. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 9994 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Collapsing Certain Respondents A. The Ananda Group As noted above, on October 28, 2008, AAE informed the Department that it is affiliated with two producers/exporters of shrimp in India listed in the Department’s Intent to Rescind Memo, and it requested that the Department: 1) maintain the review with respect to these two companies; and 2) treat itself and these two companies as a single entity for purposes of this administrative review. In order to assess the merits of the Ananda Group’s claim, on November 7, 2008, we requested information regarding the relationship between AAE, AF, and AAA during the POR. In response, on November 25, 2008, the Ananda Group provided information demonstrating that the three companies had numerous common members on their boards of directors, and that two of the companies shared common ownership. Moreover, the Ananda Group indicated that the companies had intertwined operations via common management and shared sales and production information. Finally, the Ananda Group indicated that two of the three companies had production facilities capable of producing in–scope merchandise, while the third sold in– scope merchandise to the United States and abroad. In February 2009, we requested that the Ananda Group provide additional information with respect to the ownership of the three companies and the relationships among the owners. This information was not received in time to consider for purposes of the preliminary results. Nonetheless, we intend to consider it for the final results and will revise the analysis presented below, if necessary. After considering the information currently on the record, we have preliminarily determined that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse the companies in the Ananda Group for purposes of this proceeding because: 1) entities within the group are affiliated and two of these entities have production facilities for identical or similar merchandise that would not require significant retooling in order to restructure manufacturing priorities; and 2) a significant potential for manipulation exists due to common ownership, overlapping management and board of directors, and intertwined operations. For the analysis underlying these conclusions, see the March 2, 2009, memorandum from The Team to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, entitled, ‘‘Whether to Collapse Ananda VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 Aqua Exports, Ananda Foods, and Ananda Aqua Applications in the 2007– 2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India.’’ Therefore, we have preliminarily treated the three companies as a single entity and assigned them the same antidumping duty rate (i.e., the weighted–average rate assigned to companies not selected for individual review) as outlined below. B. Falcon As noted above, in its July 11, 2008, response to section A of the questionnaire, Falcon informed the Department that it was affiliated during the POR with another shrimp producer, KR Enterprises. On September 11, 2008, we requested further information regarding the relationship between Falcon and KR Enterprises, in order to permit the Department to perform a collapsing analysis. In response, on October 1, 2008, Falcon stated that the two companies are affiliated via familial relationships among their directors, shareholders, and partners. Further, Falcon indicated the two companies share administrative and production facilities. After an analysis of this information, we determined that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse these entities for purposes of this review because: 1) Falcon and KR Enterprises are affiliated and have production facilities for identical or similar merchandise that would not require significant retooling in order to restructure manufacturing priorities; and 2) a significant potential for manipulation exists due to common ownership, overlapping management and board of directors, and intertwined operations. For further discussion, see the Falcon Collapsing Memo. Therefore, we have treated these companies as a single entity and have assigned them the antidumping duty rate calculated for Falcon, as outlined below. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the ‘‘Constructed Export Price/Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice. Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for Devi and Falcon, we compared the EPs or CEPs of individual U.S. transactions, as applicable, to the weighted–average NV of the foreign like product in the appropriate corresponding calendar month where there were sales made in PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Devi and Falcon 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 in Canada (for Devi) and Japan (for Falcon) within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the first U.S. sale until two months after the month of the last U.S. sale. 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, according to section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. For Devi and Falcon, where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise, we made product comparisons using constructed value (CV). See section 773(a)(4) of the Act. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Devi and Falcon 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. Constructed Export Price/Export Price For all U.S. sales made by Falcon, and for certain U.S. sales made by Devi, we used 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 CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record. For the remaining U.S. sales made by Devi, we calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold for the account of this company by its subsidiary in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers. With respect to one CEP sale, however, we discovered at verification that Devi had inadvertently failed to include this transaction in its U.S. sales listing. Therefore, we based the margin for this transaction on facts E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices available. As facts available, we assigned the weighted–average margin calculated on Devi’s reported U.S. sales, in accordance with our practice. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 50933 (Aug. 29, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14. We revised the data reported by Devi to take into account minor corrections found at verification. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES A. Devi We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight expenses, export inspection agency (EIA) fees, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, various foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, international freight expenses, terminal handling charges, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. warehousing expenses, and U.S. inland freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for those sales where the merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the producer or exporter. We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight expenses, EIA fees, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, various foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, international freight expenses, terminal handling charges, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. inland freight expenses (including both freight from port to warehouse and VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 freight from warehouse to the customer), and U.S. warehousing expenses. In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses and other direct selling expenses), commissions, sales and marketing allowance expenditures, and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses). Finally, where commissions were paid in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we offset these commissions by the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the comparison market. Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using the expenses incurred by Devi and its U.S. affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit associated with those sales. B. Falcon We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions from the starting price for cold storage expenses, loading and unloading expenses, trailer hire expenses, foreign inland freight expenses, port charges, export survey charges, terminal and handling charges, other miscellaneous shipment charges, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, international freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing 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 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 9995 accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. We determined that the aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product for Devi and Falcon was insufficient to permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. For Devi, as noted above, we used Canada as the comparison market because this was Devi’s only viable comparison market during the POR. For Falcon, we selected Japan as the comparison market because, among other things, sales of foreign like product in Japan were the most similar to the subject merchandise. See the Third Country Market Memo for further discussion. Therefore, we used sales to Canada and Japan as the basis for comparison market sales for Devi and Falcon, respectively, in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404. 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. 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 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to determine whether the comparison market 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),5 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 Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314– 16 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 5 Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 9996 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 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 possible, 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 possible), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See, e.g., 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. Devi Devi reported that it made sales through two channels of distribution in the United States (i.e., EP sales made directly to unaffiliated customers and CEP sales via an affiliated reseller); however, it stated that the selling activities it performed and the relative level of intensity of each selling activity did not vary by channel of distribution. Devi reported performing the following selling functions for its U.S. sales: sales planning, personnel training, sales promotion, packing, inventory maintenance in India, handling of sales inquiries, order processing, freight and delivery services (including pre– shipment inspection, foreign transportation, and export customs clearance), extension of credit to U.S. customers, providing discounts and rebates, and providing post–sale warranties and guarantees. These selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and, 4) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling functions, we find that Devi performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical support for all U.S. sales. Because Devi’s selling VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 activities did not vary by distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to Canada, Devi reported that it made sales through a single channel of distribution (i.e., sales made directly to unaffiliated customers) and that all selling functions were performed at the same levels of intensity as in the U.S. market. We examined the selling activities performed for third country sales and found that Devi performed the following selling functions: sales planning, personnel training, sales promotion, packing, inventory maintenance in India, handling of sales inquiries, order processing, freight and delivery services (including pre–shipment inspection and foreign transportation), extension of credit to Canadian customers, providing discounts and rebates, and providing post–sale warranties and guarantees. Accordingly, based on the selling functions noted above, we find that Devi performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical services for third country sales. Because all third country sales are made through a single distribution channel and the selling activities to Devi’s customers did not vary within this channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third country market for Devi. Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the third country market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and third country market customers do not differ, as Devi performed the same selling functions at the same relative level of intensity in both markets. Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and third country markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted. 2. Falcon Falcon reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to trading companies and distributors. Because Falcon reported no difference in the selling activities it performed or the relative level of intensity of each selling activity for these two customer categories, we find that there is only one channel of distribution for Falcon’s EP sales. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found that Falcon performed the following selling functions: customer contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (in India and the United States); cold storage and inventory maintenance; PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 quality–assurance-related activities; and banking–related activities. These selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and 4) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling functions, we find that Falcon performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. With respect to the third country market, Falcon reported that it made sales to trading companies and that all selling functions were performed at the same levels of intensity as in the U.S. market. We examined the selling activities performed for third country sales, and found that Falcon performed the following selling functions: customer contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight and the provision of customs clearance/ brokerage services (in India); cold storage and inventory maintenance; quality–assurance-related activities; and banking–related activities. Accordingly, based on the selling functions, we find that Falcon performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for all third country sales. Because all third country sales are made through a single distribution channel and the selling activities to Falcon’s customers did not vary within this channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third country market for Falcon. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the third country market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and third country market customers do not differ, as Falcon performed the same selling functions at the same relative level of intensity in both markets. Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and third country markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment is warranted. C. Cost of Production Analysis We found that Devi and Falcon made sales below the COP in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding, as of the date of initiation of this review, in which each respondent was examined, and such sales were disregarded. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52055, 52058 (Sept. 12, 2007) (finding that Falcon made below– cost sales); and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India, 69 FR 76916 (Dec. 23, 2004) (LTFV Final Determination) (finding that Devi made below–cost sales). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Devi and Falcon made sales in the third country market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. 1. Calculation of Cost of Production In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the respondents’ COPs based on the sum of their costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for 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 recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, except for the following instances: a. Devi i. In calculating Devi’s G&A expense ratio, we included the loss on the sale of fixed assets in the numerator, and we offset the numerator for proceeds from the sale of shrimp heads and shell waste. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES ii. We recalculated Devi’s financial expense ratio to reclassify certain Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) fees related to sales activity as selling expenses. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum from Laurens van Houten, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results – Devi Sea Foods Limited,’’ dated March 2, 2009. b. Falcon i. We recalculated Falcon’s G&A expense ratios to: 1) include wealth and fringe benefit taxes as G&A expenses; and 2) use cost of goods sold as the denominator. ii. We recalculated Falcon’s financial expense ratio to use cost of goods VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 sold as the denominator. iii. We recalculated KR Enterprises’ G&A expense ratio to: 1) include fringe benefit taxes and insurance expenses as G&A expenses; and 2) use cost of goods sold as the denominator. iv. We recalculated KR’s financial expense ratio to: 1) include letter of credit opening charges as financial expenses; and 2) use cost of goods sold as the denominator. For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum from Ji Young Oh, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results Falcon Marine Exports Limited,’’ dated March 2, 2009. 2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices On a product–specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted– average COP to the comparison market sales prices 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, discounts, direct and indirect selling expenses and packing expenses. 3. Results of the COP Test In determining whether to disregard third country sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of 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. In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 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 when: 1) they were made within an extended period of time in ‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 9997 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 products, more than 20 percent of Devi’s and Falcon’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 third country sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared CEPs or EPs, as appropriate, to 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. Devi For Devi, we calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in Canada. We made adjustments to the starting price, where appropriate, for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions for foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, various foreign miscellaneous shipment charges and international freight expenses (including terminal handling charges) under section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. For comparisons to EP sales, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for direct selling expenses (including bank charges, ECGC fees, EIA fees, imputed credit expenses, and other direct selling expenses), and commissions. 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. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). If the commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment 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. Id. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 9998 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES For comparisons to CEP sales, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we deducted from NV direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses and other direct selling expenses), commissions, sales and marketing allowance expenditures, and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses). 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. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Id. For all price–to-price comparisons, 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. We also deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 2. Falcon We based NV for Falcon on delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in Japan. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for cold storage expenses, loading and unloading expenses, trailer hire expenses, foreign inland freight expenses, port charges, export survey charges, terminal and handling charges, foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and international freight expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 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 for commissions, imputed credit expenses, bank fees, EIA fees, ECGC premiums, outside inspection/lab expenses, letter of credit amendment charges, and other miscellaneous selling expenses. For those U.S. sales for which Falcon had not received payment as of the date of the sales verification, we recalculated U.S. credit expenses using the date first day of verification as the date of payment. Finally, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 (including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the comparison market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). If commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Id. 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. We also deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. E. 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 all sales of the comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative (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 it 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 circumstances of sale in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(iii) and (a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance–of-sale adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. See 19 CFR 351.410(c). For comparisons to Devi’s CEP, we made circumstance–of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison market direct selling expenses from CV. Id. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for comparison market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 EP and CEP comparisons. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars for all spot transactions by Devi and Falcon in accordance with section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. In addition, both Devi and Falcon reported that they purchased forward exchange contracts which were used to convert the currency in which certain sales transactions were made into home market currency. Under 19 CFR 351.415(b), if a currency transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export sale under consideration, the Department is directed to use the exchange rate specified with respect to such foreign currency in the forward sale agreement to convert the foreign currency. See LTFV Final Determination and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12103, 12113 (Mar. 6, 2008), unchanged in 2006–2007 Final Results. Therefore, for Devi and Falcon we used the reported forward exchange rates for currency conversions where applicable. Preliminary Results of the Review We preliminarily determine that weighted–average dumping margins exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2006, through January 31, 2007, as follows: Manufacturer/Exporter Devi Sea Foods Limited ............. Falcon Marine Exports Limited/ KR Enterprises ........................ Percent Margin 0.39 0.79 Review–Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:6 Manufacturer/Exporter Abad Fisheries ............................ Accelerated Freeze–Drying Co. Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. .... Allanasons Ltd. ........................... AMI Enterprises .......................... Amulya Sea Foods ..................... Anand Aqua Exports .................. Percent Margin 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 6 This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculation for those companies selected for individual review, excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts available (AFA). E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices Percent Margin dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Manufacturer/Exporter Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Ltd./ Ananda Foods/Ananda Aqua Applications ............................. Andaman Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. ..... Angelique Intl .............................. Anjaneya Seafoods .................... Apex Exports .............................. Asvini Exports ............................. Asvini Fisheries Private Limited Avanti Feeds Limited .................. Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited .......................................... Baby Marine International .......... Baby Marine Sarass ................... Bhatsons Aquatic Products ........ Bhavani Seafoods ...................... Bijaya Marine Products .............. Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd. .......................................... Bluefin Enterprises ..................... Bluepark Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. ....... BMR Exports .............................. Britto Exports .............................. Calcutta Seafoods ...................... Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. ........ Castlerock Fisheries Ltd. ............ Chemmeens (Regd) ................... Choice Canning Company ......... Choice Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd. .......................................... Coastal Corporation Ltd. ............ Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. Coreline Exports ......................... Devi Fisheries Limited ................ Digha Seafood Exports .............. Esmario Export Enterprises ........ Exporter Coreline Exports .......... Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited ..................................... Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. .. Frigerio Conserva Allana Limited Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd. .......... G A Randerian Ltd. .................... Gadre Marine Exports ................ Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd. Gayatri Seafoods ........................ Geo Aquatic Products (P) Ltd. ... Geo Seafoods ............................. Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd. ..... GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd. ................ HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd. Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd. Hindustan Lever, Ltd. ................. Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage ...... Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd. ............ Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at Jawar Naka, Porbandar, Gujarat – 360 575, India) ....................................... Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at APM–Mafco Yard, Sector – 18 Vashi, Navi, Mumbai – 400 705, India) ....... IFB Agro Industries Limited ........ Indian Aquatic Products ............. Indo Aquatics .............................. Innovative Foods Limited ........... International Freezefish Exports Interseas ..................................... ITC Ltd. ....................................... Jagadeesh Marine Exports ......... Jaya Satya Marine Exports ........ VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Manufacturer/Exporter Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. .......................................... Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private Limited ..................................... Jinny Marine Traders .................. Jiya Packagings .......................... K R M Marine Exports Ltd. ......... Kalyanee Marine ......................... Kay Kay Exports ......................... Kings Marine Products ............... Koluthara Exports Ltd. ................ Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd. .......................................... Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd. .... Magnum Estate Private Limited Magnum Export .......................... Magnum Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. .... Malabar Arabian Fisheries ......... Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd. ............ Mangala Marine Exim India Private Ltd. .................................. Mangala Sea Products ............... Manufacturer Falcon Marine Exports ........................................ MSC Marine Exporters ............... MTR Foods ................................. Naga Hanuman Fish Packers .... Naik Frozen Foods ..................... Navayuga Exports Ltd. ............... Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited ...... NGR Aqua International ............. Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. ............ Overseas Marine Export ............. Penver Products (P) Ltd. ............ Pijikay International Exports P Ltd. .......................................... Pisces Seafood International ...... Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd. Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. ................ Raju Exports ............................... Ram’s Assorted Cold Storage Ltd. .......................................... Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage ....... Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd. ........ Razban Seafoods Ltd. ................ RBT Exports ............................... Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd. ............. Rohi Marine Private Ltd. ............. RVR Marine Products Private Limited ..................................... S A Exports ................................ S Chanchala Combines .............. S & S Seafoods .......................... Safa Enterprises ......................... Sagar Foods ............................... Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. .... Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. ...... Sai Sea Foods ............................ Sai Sea Foods a.k.a. Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. ..................... Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd. Sandhya Aqua Exports ............... Sandhya Marines Limited ........... Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd. .. Satya Seafoods Private Limited Sawant Food Products ............... Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ....... Selvam Exports Private Limited Shippers Exports ........................ Shroff Processed Food & Cold ZStorage P Ltd. ....................... Silver Seafood ............................ PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Percent Margin 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Manufacturer/Exporter Sita Marine Exports .................... Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd. .............. Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd. ................................ Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage ............ Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd. .......................................... Sri Satya Marine Exports ........... Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd. ........................ SSF Ltd. ...................................... Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited ..................................... Sun Bio–Technology Ltd. ........... Suryamitra Exim (P) Ltd. ............ Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited ..................................... Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. .. TBR Exports Pvt Ltd. .................. Teekay Maine P. Ltd .................. The Kadalkanny Group (Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Diamond Seafoods Exports, and Theva & Company) The Liberty Group (Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited/ Kader Exports Private Limited/ Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./ Liberty Oil Mills Ltd./Premier Marine Products/Universal Cold Storage Private Limited) The Waterbase Limited .............. Tejaswani Enterprises ................ Usha Seafoods ........................... V.S Exim Pvt Ltd. ....................... Veejay Impex .............................. Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd. .......................................... Vinner Marine ............................. Vishal Exports ............................. Wellcome Fisheries Limited ....... 9999 Percent Margin 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 Disclosure and Public Hearing The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. 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). 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. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 10000 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 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. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Id. The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the 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. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 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(b)(1). 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. For Devi and Falcon 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 sales. 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 will calculate importer–specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the companies which 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 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 assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. 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. 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 and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. See 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. 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) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 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 above 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 less–than-fair–value (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 continue to be 10.17 percent, the all–others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See Shrimp Order, 70 FR at 5148. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. A–549–822 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 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated: March 2, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–4920 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: 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 Thailand with respect to 136 companies. The two respondents which the Department selected for individual examination are Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd. (Andaman), Wales & Co. Universe Limited, Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (CFF), Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd. (CSF), Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd. (PTN), Phattana Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (PFF), Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd. (TFC), Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd. (TIS), and Sea Wealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (Sea Wealth) (collectively, the Rubicon Group), and Pakfood Public Company Limited and its affiliates, Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company, Limited and Takzin Samut Company, Limited (collectively, Pakfood). 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 review covers the period February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. We preliminarily determine that sales were made by Pakfood and the Rubicon Group below normal value (NV). In addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 44 (Monday, March 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9991-10000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4920]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-533-840


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results 
and Preliminary Partial Rescission 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 (shrimp) from

[[Page 9992]]

India with respect to 170 companies.\1\ The respondents which the 
Department selected for individual review are Devi Sea Foods Limited 
(Devi) and Falcon Marine Exports Limited (Falcon). The respondents 
which were not selected for individual review 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) 
is February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure does not include those companies for which the 
Department is rescinding the administrative review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales made by Devi have not been 
made at below normal value (NV), while those made by Falcon have. In 
addition, based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected 
for individual review, we have preliminarily determined a margin for 
those companies that the Department did not select for individual 
review.
    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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3874 or (202) 482-0049, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from India, 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 2005) (Shrimp Order). 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 of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India 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 (Feb. 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 U.S. sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp by numerous 
producers/exporters, the Department published a notice of initiation of 
administrative review for 336 companies. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand: Notice of Initiation 
of Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 18754, 18757-18762 (Apr. 7, 2008) 
(Initiation Notice).
    In our initiation notice we indicated that we would select 
mandatory respondents for review based upon CBP entry data, and that we 
would limit the respondents selected for individual review in 
accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act). See Initiation Notice, 73 FR at 18765. In April 
2008, we received comments on the issue of respondent selection from 
Devi, Falcon, and the petitioner.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April and May 2008, we received statements from 18 companies 
that indicated that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR.
    In May 2008, after considering 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, we selected the two largest producers/exporters 
of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India during the POR (i.e., 
Devi and Falcon) for individual review in this segment of this 
proceeding (see the May 27, 2008, Memorandum to James Maeder from 
Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, ``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: 
Selection of Respondents for Individual Review''), and we issued the 
antidumping duty questionnaire to them.
    In July 2008 we received responses from Devi and Falcon to section 
A of the questionnaire (i.e., the section related to general 
information), as well as to sections B and C (i.e., the sections 
covering comparison market and U.S. sales, respectively) and D (i.e., 
the section covering cost of production (COP)). Also in July 2008, the 
petitioner submitted comments regarding the appropriate third-country 
comparison market for Falcon, and it withdrew its review requests for 
144 companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).
    In September 2008, we selected Japan as the third country 
comparison market for Falcon. For a discussion, see the September 3, 
2008, memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations 
from the team entitled, ``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India - Selection of the 
Appropriate Third Country Market for Falcon Marine Exports Limited'' 
(Third Country Market Memo). As Devi had only one viable comparison 
market, Canada, no further market selection process was necessary for 
Devi.
    Also in September 2008, we requested that Falcon provide additional 
information regarding its relationship with an affiliated shrimp 
producer, KR Enterprises, in order to determine whether it was 
appropriate to collapse these two companies (i.e., treat them as a 
single entity) for purposes of our analysis. In addition, we issued a 
supplemental questionnaire covering section D to Devi, as well as 
supplemental questionnaires covering sections A and D to Falcon.
    On October 8, 2008, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results in this review until no later than March 2, 2008. 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 
(Oct. 8, 2008).
    In October 2008, the Department issued supplemental questionnaires 
covering sections A through C for Devi and sections B and C for Falcon. 
In October and November 2008, Devi and Falcon responded to these 
supplemental questionnaires, as well as to the supplemental 
questionnaires issued in September 2008, and Falcon also provided the 
additional information requested by the Department with respect to its 
relationship with KR Enterprises.
    Also in October 2008, the Department issued a memorandum indicating 
that it intended to rescind the administrative review with respect to 
168 respondent companies, and it invited comments on this action from 
interested parties. See the October 16, 2008 memorandum to the file 
from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, ``Intent to Rescind in Part the 2007-
2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from India'' (Intent to Rescind Memo). In response, the Department 
received comments from: 1) Ananda Aqua Exports (AAE), Ananda Foods 
(AF), and Ananda Aqua Applications (AAA) (collectively, the ``Ananda 
Group'') objecting to the rescission with respect to AF and AAA; 2) Sai 
Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd.

[[Page 9993]]

confirming the proper address for that company; 3) 32 U.S. producers 
opposing the rescission with respect to 144 companies for which the 
petitioner withdrew its review request; and 4) the petitioner objecting 
to the opposition by the 32 U.S. producers.
    In November 2008, the Department requested, and received, 
information regarding the relationship among the Ananda Group during 
the POR, in order to permit the Department to perform a collapsing 
analysis.
    In December 2008, we published a notice rescinding the 
administrative review with respect to 166 companies,\3\ based on the 
following reasons: 1) timely withdrawals of the review requests; 2) 
confirmed statements of no shipments during the POR; and/or 3) 
duplicated names and/or addresses in our notice of initiation. See 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610 (Dec. 19, 2008) 
(Partial Rescission Notice). See also the Intent to Rescind Memo. In 
rescinding the review with respect to the companies for which the 
petitioner withdrew its review request, we disregarded the 32 U.S. 
producers' opposition because the underlying review requests were made 
on behalf of the petitioner, and not on behalf of any individual U.S. 
producer. See Partial Rescission Notice, 73 FR at 77612.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Department did not rescind this review with respect to 
the two Ananda Group Companies listed in the Intent to Rescind Memo, 
based on their objection. For further discussion see the 
``Collapsing Certain Respondents'' section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From December 2008 through January 2009, we conducted a sales 
verification of Devi's U.S. affiliate, Devi Seafoods, Inc., as well as 
sales and cost verifications of Devi and Falcon.
    In February 2009, we requested that AAE provide additional 
information about its ownership in order to facilitate the Department's 
collapsing analysis. Also in this month, we determined that it was 
appropriate to collapse Falcon and its affiliate KR Enterprises, and 
thus we are treating these companies as the same entity for purposes of 
this proceeding. For further discussion, see the February 19, 2009, 
memorandum from The Team to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, entitled, 
``Whether to Collapse KR Enterprises and Falcon Marine Exports Limited 
in the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India'' (Falcon Collapsing Memo).
    In February 2009, at the request of the Department, Falcon 
submitted revised U.S. and third country sales databases.

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,\4\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``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 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.

Partial Rescission of Review

    As noted above, on April 7, 2008, the Department initiated this 
review with respect to 336 companies. With respect to two of these 
companies, Asvini Fisheries Limited and Surya Marine Exports, we stated 
that we intended to rescind the review for these two companies if we 
found in the final results of the 2006-2007 administrative review that 
these companies are the successors-in-interest to two additional Indian 
shrimp exporters included in this review. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR 
at 18761-18762. In the final results of the 2006-2007 administrative 
review, we found Asvini Fisheries Private Limited to be the successor-
in-interest to Asvini Fisheries Limited and found Suryamitra Exim (P) 
Ltd. to be the successor-in-interest to Surya Marine Exports. See 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final Results and Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 40492, 
40493-40494 (July 15, 2008) (2006-2007 Final Results). Accordingly, 
consistent with our stated intention in our Initiation Notice, we are 
rescinding this administrative review with respect to Asvini Fisheries 
Limited and Surya Marine Exports.

[[Page 9994]]

Collapsing Certain Respondents

A. The Ananda Group
    As noted above, on October 28, 2008, AAE informed the Department 
that it is affiliated with two producers/exporters of shrimp in India 
listed in the Department's Intent to Rescind Memo, and it requested 
that the Department: 1) maintain the review with respect to these two 
companies; and 2) treat itself and these two companies as a single 
entity for purposes of this administrative review.
    In order to assess the merits of the Ananda Group's claim, on 
November 7, 2008, we requested information regarding the relationship 
between AAE, AF, and AAA during the POR. In response, on November 25, 
2008, the Ananda Group provided information demonstrating that the 
three companies had numerous common members on their boards of 
directors, and that two of the companies shared common ownership. 
Moreover, the Ananda Group indicated that the companies had intertwined 
operations via common management and shared sales and production 
information. Finally, the Ananda Group indicated that two of the three 
companies had production facilities capable of producing in-scope 
merchandise, while the third sold in-scope merchandise to the United 
States and abroad.
    In February 2009, we requested that the Ananda Group provide 
additional information with respect to the ownership of the three 
companies and the relationships among the owners. This information was 
not received in time to consider for purposes of the preliminary 
results. Nonetheless, we intend to consider it for the final results 
and will revise the analysis presented below, if necessary.
    After considering the information currently on the record, we have 
preliminarily determined that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it 
is appropriate to collapse the companies in the Ananda Group for 
purposes of this proceeding because: 1) entities within the group are 
affiliated and two of these entities have production facilities for 
identical or similar merchandise that would not require significant 
retooling in order to restructure manufacturing priorities; and 2) a 
significant potential for manipulation exists due to common ownership, 
overlapping management and board of directors, and intertwined 
operations. For the analysis underlying these conclusions, see the 
March 2, 2009, memorandum from The Team to James Maeder, Director, 
Office 2, entitled, ``Whether to Collapse Ananda Aqua Exports, Ananda 
Foods, and Ananda Aqua Applications in the 2007-2008 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India.'' 
Therefore, we have preliminarily treated the three companies as a 
single entity and assigned them the same antidumping duty rate (i.e., 
the weighted-average rate assigned to companies not selected for 
individual review) as outlined below.
B. Falcon
    As noted above, in its July 11, 2008, response to section A of the 
questionnaire, Falcon informed the Department that it was affiliated 
during the POR with another shrimp producer, KR Enterprises. On 
September 11, 2008, we requested further information regarding the 
relationship between Falcon and KR Enterprises, in order to permit the 
Department to perform a collapsing analysis. In response, on October 1, 
2008, Falcon stated that the two companies are affiliated via familial 
relationships among their directors, shareholders, and partners. 
Further, Falcon indicated the two companies share administrative and 
production facilities.
    After an analysis of this information, we determined that, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to collapse these 
entities for purposes of this review because: 1) Falcon and KR 
Enterprises are affiliated and have production facilities for identical 
or similar merchandise that would not require significant retooling in 
order to restructure manufacturing priorities; and 2) a significant 
potential for manipulation exists due to common ownership, overlapping 
management and board of directors, and intertwined operations. For 
further discussion, see the Falcon Collapsing Memo. Therefore, we have 
treated these companies as a single entity and have assigned them the 
antidumping duty rate calculated for Falcon, as outlined below.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
India to the United States were made at less than NV, we compared the 
export price (EP) or constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as 
described in the ``Constructed Export Price/Export Price'' and ``Normal 
Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for 
Devi and Falcon, we compared the EPs or CEPs of individual U.S. 
transactions, as applicable, to the weighted-average NV of the foreign 
like product in the appropriate corresponding calendar month 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)(A) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Devi and Falcon 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 in Canada (for Devi) and Japan (for Falcon) within 
the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months 
prior to the month of the first U.S. sale until two months after the 
month of the last U.S. sale. 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, according to section 771(16)(B) of the 
Act, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade. For Devi and Falcon, 
where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise, we made 
product comparisons using constructed value (CV). See section 773(a)(4) 
of the Act.
    In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by Devi and Falcon 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.

Constructed Export Price/Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Falcon, and for certain U.S. sales made 
by Devi, we used 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 
CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of 
record.
    For the remaining U.S. sales made by Devi, we calculated CEP in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject 
merchandise was sold for the account of this company by its subsidiary 
in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers. With respect to one 
CEP sale, however, we discovered at verification that Devi had 
inadvertently failed to include this transaction in its U.S. sales 
listing. Therefore, we based the margin for this transaction on facts

[[Page 9995]]

available. As facts available, we assigned the weighted-average margin 
calculated on Devi's reported U.S. sales, in accordance with our 
practice. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: 
Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 50933 (Aug. 29, 2008), and accompanying 
Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 14.

We revised the data reported by Devi to take into account minor 
corrections found at verification.

A. Devi
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
also made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight 
expenses, export inspection agency (EIA) fees, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses, various foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, 
international freight expenses, terminal handling charges, marine 
insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance 
fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. brokerage and handling 
expenses, U.S. warehousing expenses, and U.S. inland freight expenses, 
where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
those sales where the merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for 
the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter. We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we 
made adjustments for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign 
inland freight expenses, EIA fees, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, various foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, international 
freight expenses, terminal handling charges, marine insurance expenses, 
U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise 
processing fees), U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. inland 
freight expenses (including both freight from port to warehouse and 
freight from warehouse to the customer), and U.S. warehousing expenses.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses and other direct selling 
expenses), commissions, sales and marketing allowance expenditures, and 
indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other 
indirect selling expenses). Finally, where commissions were paid in the 
U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we offset these 
commissions by the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the 
U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses (including 
inventory carrying costs) incurred in the comparison market.
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by Devi and its U.S. affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit associated 
with those sales.
B. Falcon
    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
also made deductions from the starting price for cold storage expenses, 
loading and unloading expenses, trailer hire expenses, foreign inland 
freight expenses, port charges, export survey charges, terminal and 
handling charges, other miscellaneous shipment charges, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, international freight expenses, marine 
insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance 
fees and merchandise processing 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.
    We determined that the aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product for Devi and Falcon was insufficient to permit a 
proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. For Devi, 
as noted above, we used Canada as the comparison market because this 
was Devi's only viable comparison market during the POR. For Falcon, we 
selected Japan as the comparison market because, among other things, 
sales of foreign like product in Japan were the most similar to the 
subject merchandise. See the Third Country Market Memo for further 
discussion. Therefore, we used sales to Canada and Japan as the basis 
for comparison market sales for Devi and Falcon, respectively, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404.
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. 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 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to 
determine whether the comparison market 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),\5\ 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 Tech., Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general 
and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where 
possible.

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

[[Page 9996]]

    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 possible, 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 possible), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See, e.g., 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. Devi

    Devi reported that it made sales through two channels of 
distribution in the United States (i.e., EP sales made directly to 
unaffiliated customers and CEP sales via an affiliated reseller); 
however, it stated that the selling activities it performed and the 
relative level of intensity of each selling activity did not vary by 
channel of distribution. Devi reported performing the following selling 
functions for its U.S. sales: sales planning, personnel training, sales 
promotion, packing, inventory maintenance in India, handling of sales 
inquiries, order processing, freight and delivery services (including 
pre-shipment inspection, foreign transportation, and export customs 
clearance), extension of credit to U.S. customers, providing discounts 
and rebates, and providing post-sale warranties and guarantees. These 
selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling function 
categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and 
delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and, 4) warranty 
and technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling functions, we 
find that Devi performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery 
services, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and 
technical support for all U.S. sales. Because Devi's selling activities 
did not vary by distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that 
there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to Canada, Devi reported that it made sales through a 
single channel of distribution (i.e., sales made directly to 
unaffiliated customers) and that all selling functions were performed 
at the same levels of intensity as in the U.S. market. We examined the 
selling activities performed for third country sales and found that 
Devi performed the following selling functions: sales planning, 
personnel training, sales promotion, packing, inventory maintenance in 
India, handling of sales inquiries, order processing, freight and 
delivery services (including pre-shipment inspection and foreign 
transportation), extension of credit to Canadian customers, providing 
discounts and rebates, and providing post-sale warranties and 
guarantees. Accordingly, based on the selling functions noted above, we 
find that Devi performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery 
services, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and 
technical services for third country sales. Because all third country 
sales are made through a single distribution channel and the selling 
activities to Devi's customers did not vary within this channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third country 
market for Devi.
    Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the third country market LOT 
and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and third 
country market customers do not differ, as Devi performed the same 
selling functions at the same relative level of intensity in both 
markets. Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and third 
country markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a 
result, no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted.

2. Falcon

    Falcon reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to trading 
companies and distributors. Because Falcon reported no difference in 
the selling activities it performed or the relative level of intensity 
of each selling activity for these two customer categories, we find 
that there is only one channel of distribution for Falcon's EP sales. 
We examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found 
that Falcon performed the following selling functions: customer contact 
and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight and the 
provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (in India and the 
United States); cold storage and inventory maintenance; quality-
assurance-related activities; and banking-related activities. These 
selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling function 
categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and 
delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and 4) warranty and 
technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling functions, we find 
that Falcon performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery 
services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. 
Because all sales in the United States are made through a single 
distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT 
in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the third country market, Falcon reported that it 
made sales to trading companies and that all selling functions were 
performed at the same levels of intensity as in the U.S. market. We 
examined the selling activities performed for third country sales, and 
found that Falcon performed the following selling functions: customer 
contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight 
and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (in India); 
cold storage and inventory maintenance; quality-assurance-related 
activities; and banking-related activities. Accordingly, based on the 
selling functions, we find that Falcon performed sales and marketing, 
freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing for all third country sales. Because all third country 
sales are made through a single distribution channel and the selling 
activities to Falcon's customers did not vary within this channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third country 
market for Falcon.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the third country market LOT and 
found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and third country 
market customers do not differ, as Falcon performed the same selling 
functions at the same relative level of intensity in both markets. 
Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and third country 
markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no 
LOT adjustment is warranted.
C. Cost of Production Analysis
    We found that Devi and Falcon made sales below the COP in the most 
recently completed segment of this proceeding, as of the date of 
initiation of this review, in which each respondent was examined, and 
such sales were disregarded. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of

[[Page 9997]]

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52055, 52058 (Sept. 12, 
2007) (finding that Falcon made below-cost sales); and Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp From India, 69 FR 76916 (Dec. 23, 2004) (LTFV Final 
Determination) (finding that Devi made below-cost sales). Thus, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Devi and Falcon made 
sales in the third country market at prices below the cost of producing 
the merchandise in the current review period.

1. Calculation of Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
respondents' COPs based on the sum of their costs of materials and 
conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for 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 recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, 
except for the following instances:

a. Devi

    i. In calculating Devi's G&A expense ratio, we included the loss on 
the sale of fixed assets in the numerator, and we offset the numerator 
for proceeds from the sale of shrimp heads and shell waste.
    ii. We recalculated Devi's financial expense ratio to reclassify 
certain Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) fees related to 
sales activity as selling expenses.

    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum 
from Laurens van Houten, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, 
Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, ``Cost of Production and 
Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - 
Devi Sea Foods Limited,'' dated March 2, 2009.

b. Falcon

    i. We recalculated Falcon's G&A expense ratios to: 1) include 
wealth and fringe benefit taxes as G&A expenses; and 2) use cost of 
goods sold as the denominator.
    ii. We recalculated Falcon's financial expense ratio to use cost of 
goods sold as the denominator.
    iii. We recalculated KR Enterprises' G&A expense ratio to: 1) 
include fringe benefit taxes and insurance expenses as G&A expenses; 
and 2) use cost of goods sold as the denominator.
    iv. We recalculated KR's financial expense ratio to: 1) include 
letter of credit opening charges as financial expenses; and 2) use cost 
of goods sold as the denominator.

    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum 
from Ji Young Oh, Senior Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, 
Office of Accounting, entitled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed 
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results Falcon Marine 
Exports Limited,'' dated March 2, 2009.

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the comparison market sales prices 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, discounts, direct and 
indirect selling expenses and packing expenses.

3. Results of the COP Test

    In determining whether to disregard third country sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of 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. 
In accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of the Act, 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 when: 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 products, more than 20 percent of Devi's 
and Falcon'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 
third country sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared CEPs 
or EPs, as appropriate, to 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. Devi

    For Devi, we calculated NV based on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in Canada. We made adjustments to the starting 
price, where appropriate, for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(c). We also made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, various foreign 
miscellaneous shipment charges and international freight expenses 
(including terminal handling charges) under section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act.
    For comparisons to EP sales, we made adjustments under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 
circumstances of sale for direct selling expenses (including bank 
charges, ECGC fees, EIA fees, imputed credit expenses, and other direct 
selling expenses), and commissions. 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. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). If the commissions 
were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we 
made an upward adjustment 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. Id.

[[Page 9998]]

    For comparisons to CEP sales, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we deducted from NV 
direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses and other direct 
selling expenses), commissions, sales and marketing allowance 
expenditures, and indirect selling expenses (including inventory 
carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses). 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. See 19 CFR 
351.410(e). If commissions were granted in the comparison market but 
not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following 
the same methodology. Id.
    For all price-to-price comparisons, 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. We also deducted third 
country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

2. Falcon

    We based NV for Falcon on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers in Japan. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the 
starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
also made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for 
cold storage expenses, loading and unloading expenses, trailer hire 
expenses, foreign inland freight expenses, port charges, export survey 
charges, terminal and handling charges, foreign miscellaneous shipment 
charges, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and international 
freight expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    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 for 
commissions, imputed credit expenses, bank fees, EIA fees, ECGC 
premiums, outside inspection/lab expenses, letter of credit amendment 
charges, and other miscellaneous selling expenses. For those U.S. sales 
for which Falcon had not received payment as of the date of the sales 
verification, we recalculated U.S. credit expenses using the date first 
day of verification as the date of payment. Finally, 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 (including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the 
comparison market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). If commissions were granted 
in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward 
adjustment to NV following the same methodology. Id.
    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. 
We also deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.
E. 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 all sales of the 
comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that CV shall be based on the 
sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general, and administrative 
(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 it 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 circumstances of sale 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(iii) and (a)(8) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison 
market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. See 
19 CFR 351.410(c). For comparisons to Devi's CEP, we made circumstance-
of-sale adjustments by deducting comparison market direct selling 
expenses from CV. Id. We also made adjustments, when applicable, for 
comparison market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions 
in EP and CEP comparisons. See 19 CFR 351.410(e).

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars for all spot 
transactions by Devi and Falcon in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. In 
addition, both Devi and Falcon reported that they purchased forward 
exchange contracts which were used to convert the currency in which 
certain sales transactions were made into home market currency. Under 
19 CFR 351.415(b), if a currency transaction on forward markets is 
directly linked to an export sale under consideration, the Department 
is directed to use the exchange rate specified with respect to such 
foreign currency in the forward sale agreement to convert the foreign 
currency. See LTFV Final Determination and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; see also Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 12103, 
12113 (Mar. 6, 2008), unchanged in 2006-2007 Final Results. Therefore, 
for Devi and Falcon we used the reported forward exchange rates for 
currency conversions where applicable.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2006, through 
January 31, 2007, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Devi Sea Foods Limited......................................        0.39
Falcon Marine Exports Limited/KR Enterprises................        0.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins 
calculation for those companies selected for individual review, 
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on adverse 
facts available (AFA).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
                    Manufacturer/Exporter                       Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abad Fisheries..............................................        0.79
Accelerated Freeze-Drying Co................................        0.79
Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd................................        0.79
Allanasons Ltd..............................................        0.79
AMI Enterprises.............................................        0.79
Amulya Sea Foods............................................        0.79
Anand Aqua Exports..........................................        0.79

[[Page 9999]]

 
Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Ltd./Ananda Foods/Ananda Aqua               0.79
 Applications...............................................
Andaman Seafoods Pvt. Ltd...................................        0.79
Angelique Intl..............................................        0.79
Anjaneya Seafoods...........................................        0.79
Apex Exports................................................        0.79
Asvini Exports..............................................        0.79
Asvini Fisheries Private Limited............................        0.79
Avanti Feeds Limited........................................        0.79
Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited...........................        0.79
Baby Marine International...................................        0.79
Baby Marine Sarass..........................................        0.79
Bhatsons Aquatic Products...................................        0.79
Bhavani Seafoods............................................        0.79
Bijaya Marine Products......................................        0.79
Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd...........................        0.79
Bluefin Enterprises.........................................        0.79
Bluepark Seafoods Pvt. Ltd..................................        0.79
BMR Exports.................................................        0.79
Britto Exports..............................................        0.79
Calcutta Seafoods...........................................        0.79
Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd..................................        0.79
Castlerock Fisheries Ltd....................................        0.79
Chemmeens (Regd)............................................        0.79
Choice Canning Company......................................        0.79
Choice Trading Corporation Pvt. Ltd.........................        0.79
Coastal Corporation Ltd.....................................        0.79
Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd..............................        0.79
Coreline Exports............................................        0.79
Devi Fisheries Limited......................................        0.79
Digha Seafood Exports.......................................        0.79
Esmario Export Enterprises..................................        0.79
Exporter Coreline Exports...................................        0.79
Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited....................        0.79
Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd...............................        0.79
Frigerio Conserva Allana Limited............................        0.79
Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd..................................        0.79
G A Randerian Ltd...........................................        0.79
Gadre Marine Exports........................................        0.79
Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd..............................        0.79
Gayatri Seafoods............................................        0.79
Geo Aquatic Products (P) Ltd................................        0.79
Geo Seafoods................................................        0.79
Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd.................................        0.79
GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd........................................        0.79
HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd..............................        0.79
Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd............................        0.79
Hindustan Lever, Ltd........................................        0.79
Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage.................................        0.79
Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd...................................        0.79
Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at Jawar Naka,            0.79
 Porbandar, Gujarat - 360 575, India).......................
Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at APM-Mafco Yard,        0.79
 Sector - 18 Vashi, Navi, Mumbai - 400 705, India)..........
IFB Agro Industries Limited.................................        0.79
Indian Aquatic Products.....................................        0.79
Indo Aquatics...............................................        0.79
Innovative Foods Limited....................................        0.79
International Freezefish Exports............................        0.79
Interseas...................................................        0.79
ITC Ltd.....................................................        0.79
Jagadeesh Marine Exports....................................        0.79
Jaya Satya Marine Exports...................................        0.79
Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd..........................        0.79
Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private Limited.......................        0.79
Jinny Marine Traders........................................        0.79
Jiya Packagings.............................................        0.79
K R M Marine Exports Ltd....................................        0.79
Kalyanee Marine.............................................        0.79
Kay Kay Exports.............................................        0.79
Kings Marine Products.......................................        0.79
Koluthara Exports Ltd.......................................        0.79
Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd..........................        0.79
Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd................................        0.79
Magnum Estate Private Limited...............................        0.79
Magnum Export...............................................        0.79
Magnum Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd...................................        0.79
Malabar Arabian Fisheries...................................        0.79
Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd.....................................        0.79
Mangala Marine Exim India Private Ltd.......................        0.79
Mangala Sea Products........................................        0.79
Manufacturer Falcon Marine Exports..........................        0.79
MSC Marine Exporters........................................        0.79
MTR Foods...................................................        0.79
Naga Hanuman Fish Packers...................................        0.79
Naik Frozen Foods...........................................        0.79
Navayuga Exports Ltd........................................        0.79
Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited..................................        0.79
NGR Aqua International......................................        0.79
Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd.....................................        0.79
Overseas Marine Export......................................        0.79
Penver Products (P) Ltd.....................................        0.79
Pijikay International Exports P Ltd.........................        0.79
Pisces Seafood International................................        0.79
Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd...............................        0.79
Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd........................................        0.79
Raju Exports................................................        0.79
Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd.............................        0.79
Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage...................................        0.79
Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd...................................        0.79
Razban Seafoods Ltd.........................................        0.79
RBT Exports.................................................        0.79
Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd....................................        0.79
Rohi Marine Private Ltd.....................................        0.79
RVR Marine Products Private Limited.........................        0.79
S A Exports.................................................        0.79
S Chanchala Combines........................................        0.79
S & S Seafoods..............................................        0.79
Safa Enterprises............................................        0.79
Sagar Foods.................................................        0.79
Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd..............................        0.79
Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd...............................        0.79
Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd.................................        0.79
Sai Sea Foods...............................................        0.79
Sai Sea Foods a.k.a. Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd............        0.79
Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd...............................        0.79
Sandhya Aqua Exports........................................        0.79
Sandhya Marines Limited.....................................        0.79
Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd..............................        0.79
Satya Seafoods Private Limited..............................        0.79
Sawant Food Products........................................        0.79
Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd...................................        0.79
Selvam Exports Private Limited..............................        0.79
Shippers Exports............................................        0.79
Shroff Processed Food & Cold ZStorage P Ltd.................        0.79
Silver Seafood..............................................        0.79
Sita Marine Exports.........................................        0.79
Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd.....................................        0.79
Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd.......................        0.79
Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage....................................        0.79
Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd............................        0.79
Sri Satya Marine Exports....................................        0.79
Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd................        0.79
SSF Ltd.....................................................        0.79
Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited....................        0.79
Sun Bio-Technology Ltd......................................        0.79
Suryamitra Exim (P) Ltd.....................................        0.79
Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited.......................        0.79
Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd.................................        0.79
TBR Exports Pvt Ltd.........................................        0.79
Teekay Maine P. Ltd.........................................        0.79
The Kadalkanny Group (Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, Edhayam              0.79
 Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., Diamond Seafoods Exports, and Theva
 & Company).................................................
The Liberty Group (Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited/        0.79
 Kader Exports Private Limited/Kader Investment and Trading
 Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./
 Liberty Oil Mills Ltd./Premier Marine Products/Universal
 Cold Storage Private Limited)..............................
The Waterbase Limited.......................................        0.79
Tejaswani Enterprises.......................................        0.79
Usha Seafoods...............................................        0.79
V.S Exim Pvt Ltd............................................        0.79
Veejay Impex................................................        0.79
Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd..........................        0.79
Vinner Marine...............................................        0.79
Vishal Exports..............................................        0.79
Wellcome Fisheries Limited..................................        0.79
--