Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 10000-10009 [E9-4924]

Download as PDF 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 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices individual examination, we have preliminarily determined a weighted– average margin for those companies that were not individually examined. If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or David Goldberger, 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) 482–4929 and (202) 482–4136, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Background In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 1, 2005). On February 4, 2008, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand for the period February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 2008). In response to timely requests from interested parties, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2), to conduct an administrative review of the sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp made by numerous companies during the period of review (POR), the Department initiated an administrative review for 165 companies. These companies are listed in the Department’s notice of initiation. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 18754 (April 7, 2008). Between March and May 2008, the Department received submissions from certain companies that indicated they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Based upon the resources available to the Department, we determined that it VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 10001 was not practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise for which a review was requested. As a result, on May 27, 2008, we selected the two largest producers/ exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand during the POR, Pakfood and the Rubicon Group, for individual examination in this segment of the proceeding. See Memorandum to James Maeder from Irina Itkin entitled, ‘‘2007–2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,’’ dated May 27, 2008. On May 28, 2008, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to Pakfood and the Rubicon Group. On July 7, 2008, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the petitioner withdrew its request for review for the following eighteen companies: Anglo– Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd.; Applied DB Ind; Chonburi LC; Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean)1; Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd.; High Way International Co., Ltd.; Li–Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.; Merkur Co., Ltd.; Ming Chao Ind Thailand; Nongmon SMJ Products; Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd.; SCT Co., Ltd.; Search & Serve; Smile Heart Foods Co., Ltd.; Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd.; Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.; Thai World Imports & Exports; and Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd. We received responses to sections A, B, C, and D of the questionnaire from Pakfood and the Rubicon Group in July and August 2008. 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 (October 8, 2008). During the period September 2008 through January 2009, we issued to Pakfood and the Rubicon Group supplemental questionnaires regarding sections A, B, C, and D of the original questionnaire. We received responses to these questionnaires during the period October 2008 through February 2009. On October 27, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum indicating that it intended to rescind the administrative review with respect to 29 respondent companies, and it invited comments on this action from interested parties. See Memorandum to The File from Kate Johnson entitled ‘‘Intent to Rescind in Part the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,’’ dated October 27, 2008 (Intent to Rescind Memorandum). On November 3, 2008, and November 13, 2008, the Department received comments from 32 U.S. producers opposing the rescission with respect to the companies for which the petitioner withdrew its review request. On November 6, 2008, the petitioner responded to the comments filed on November 3, 2008. On December 19, 2008, we published a notice rescinding the administrative review with respect to 29 companies for the following reasons, where applicable: 1) the request for an administrative review for the company was withdrawn in a timely manner; 2) the company had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR; or 3) although there appeared to be U.S. customs entries of subject merchandise, we determined that the entries were not reportable transactions. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 77612 (December 19, 2008). See also Intent to Rescind Memorandum. We conducted a verification of the Rubicon Group’s cost responses in February 2009. 1 Gallant Ocean has not withdrawn its February 29, 2008, request for review. 2 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Scope of the Order The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild–caught (ocean harvested) or farm–raised (produced by aquaculture), head–on or head–off, shell–on or peeled, tail–on or tail–off,2 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. 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 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 10002 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices (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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. Period of Review The POR is February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. Comparisons to Normal Value To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand 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, below. Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), for Pakfood and the Rubicon Group we compared the EPs or CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted– average NV of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section, below. Product Comparisons In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all products produced by Pakfood and the Rubicon Group 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 the comparison market for Pakfood (home market) and the Rubicon Group (Canada) within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales of shrimp to sales of shrimp of the most similar foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. For the Rubicon Group, where there were no sales of identical or similar merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we made product comparisons using constructed value (CV). With respect to sales comparisons involving broken shrimp, we compared Pakfood’s and the Rubicon Group’s sales of broken shrimp in the United States to its sales of comparable quality shrimp in the comparison market. Where there were no sales of identical broken shrimp in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales of broken shrimp to sales of the most similar broken shrimp made in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical or similar broken shrimp, we made product comparisons using CV. In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics reported by Pakfood and the Rubicon Group 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 Pakfood, as well as certain U.S. sales made by the Rubicon Group, we used EP methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold 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 certain U.S. sales made by the Rubicon Group, we calculated CEP in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject merchandise was sold for the account of the Rubicon Group by its subsidiary in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers. A. Pakfood We based EP on FOB, C&F or DDP (delivered, duty paid) prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to the starting price for discounts. We made deductions, where appropriate, for foreign inland freight expenses, pre–sale warehousing expenses, survey fees, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses (offset by freight adjustments, where appropriate), marine insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees) in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act B. The Rubicon Group In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated EP for those sales where the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or producer outside the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to the starting price for billing adjustments and discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with section E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign inland freight expenses, foreign warehousing expenses, foreign inland insurance expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses (offset by freight refunds, where appropriate), marine insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), and U.S. inland freight expenses (i.e., freight from port to warehouse). 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 used the earlier of shipment date from Thailand to the customer or the U.S. affiliate’s invoice date to the customer as the date of sale for CEP sales, in accordance with our practice. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52065 (September 12, 2007), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 11; 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 Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10 (Thai Shrimp LTFV Investigation Final); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams from Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments, discounts and rebates. 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, foreign warehousing expenses, foreign inland insurance expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses (offset by freight refunds, where appropriate), marine insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. inland insurance expenses, U.S. inland freight expenses (i.e., freight from port VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 (e.g., bank charges, advertising, commissions, and imputed credit expenses), and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses). 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 the Rubicon Group and its U.S. affiliate on their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit associated with those sales. 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. Based on this comparison, we determined that Pakfood had a viable home market during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home market sales for Pakfood. Regarding the Rubicon Group, we determined that this respondent’s aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was insufficient to permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. Therefore, we used the Rubicon Group’s sales to Canada, its largest third–country market, as the basis for comparison– market sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404. B. Affiliated–Party Transactions and Arm’s–Length Test During the POR, Pakfood sold the foreign like product to affiliated customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm’s–length prices, we compared, on a product–specific basis, the starting prices of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all discounts and rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10003 Department’s practice, where the price to the affiliated party was, on average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same or comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm’s length. See Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 2002) (establishing that the overall ratio calculated for an affiliate must be between 98 percent and 102 percent in order for sales to be considered in the ordinary course of trade and used in the NV calculation). Sales to affiliated customers in the comparison market that were not made at arm’s–length prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered these sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102(b). C. Level of Trade Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. See Id.; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale. Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home market or third country prices),3 we consider the starting prices before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). When the Department is unable to match U.S. 3 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 10004 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 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. sales to sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. In this administrative review, we obtained information from each respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of distribution. Company– specific LOT findings are summarized below. 1. Pakfood Pakfood reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through a single channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to distributors). We examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found that Pakfood performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting/market research, sales promotion/advertising, price negotiation, order processing, invoice issuance, payment receipt, delivery services, and packing. Accordingly, we find that Pakfood performed sales and marketing, and freight and delivery services at the same relative level of intensity for all 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 home market, Pakfood made sales to processors, distributors, retailers, and end–users. Pakfood stated that its home market sales were made through a single channel of distribution, regardless of customer category. We examined the selling activities performed for this channel, and found that Pakfood performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting/market research, sales promotion/advertising, price negotiation, order processing, invoice issuance, delivery services, payment receipt, and packing. Accordingly, we find that Pakfood VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 performed sales and marketing, and freight and delivery services at the same relative level of intensity for all customers in the home market. Because all sales in the home market are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the home market. Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that sales to the U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted. 2. The Rubicon Group The Rubicon Group reported that it made both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. market to distributors/wholesalers, retailers, and food service industry customers. For EP sales, the Rubicon Group reported sales through one channel of distribution (i.e., direct from the Thai exporters to unaffiliated U.S. customers). For CEP sales, the Rubicon Group reported that its U.S. affiliate made sales through two channels of distribution: 1) from a warehouse; and 2) direct shipments to customers (‘‘drop shipments’’). We examined the selling activities performed for each channel. For direct EP sales, the Rubicon Group reported the following selling functions: sales forecasting/market research, sales promotion/trade shows, inventory maintenance, order input/processing, freight and delivery arrangements, visits/calls and correspondence to customers, development of new packaging (with customer), packing and after–sales services. Accordingly, we found that the Rubicon Group performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery, and inventory maintenance and warehousing activities. As there was only one channel of distribution for EP sales, we found that there was one LOT for EP sales. For both warehoused and drop– shipment CEP sales, the Rubicon Group reported the following selling functions: inventory maintenance, order input/ processing, freight and delivery arrangements, and packing. As the selling functions performed for both warehoused and drop- shipment sales were identical, we found that there was one LOT for CEP sales. With respect to the Canadian market, the Rubicon Group reported sales to distributors/wholesalers, retailers, and end users. The Rubicon Group stated that its Canadian sales were made through two channels of distribution: 1) PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 direct to Canadian customers; and 2) through its U.S. affiliate from a Canadian warehouse. We examined the reported selling activities and found that the Rubicon Group performed the following selling functions for direct sales to Canada: sales forecasting; market research; sales promotion; trade shows; inventory maintenance; order input/processing; freight and delivery arrangements; visits, calls and correspondence to customers; development of new packaging (with customer); packing; and after–sales services. For warehoused sales to Canada, we found that the Rubicon Group, via its U.S. affiliate, performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting; market research; advertising; sales promotion; trade shows; inventory maintenance; order input/processing; freight and delivery arrangements; visits, calls and correspondence to customers; development of new packaging and new markets (with customer); and after–sales services. Furthermore, we found that the Rubicon Group performed selling functions related to sales and marketing, freight and delivery, and inventory maintenance and warehousing at the same relative level of intensity for all customers in the comparison market. Therefore, based on our overall analysis, we found that all of the Rubicon Group’s sales in the Canadian market constituted one LOT and that this LOT was the same as the LOT for EP sales. Consequently, we matched EP sales to comparison–market sales at the same LOT and no LOT adjustment was warranted. In comparing the Canadian LOT to the CEP LOT, we found that the selling activities performed by the Thai packers4 for CEP sales were significantly fewer than the selling activities that were performed for the Canadian sales. The Thai packers provided the following selling functions: sales forecasting; market research; sales promotion; advertising; trade shows; inventory maintenance; order input/ processing; freight and delivery arrangements; visits, calls and correspondence to customers; development of new packaging and new markets (with customer); packing; and after–sales services for Canadian sales. The only selling functions that the Thai packers provided for CEP sales were inventory maintenance, order input/ processing, freight and delivery 4 The following companies in the Rubicon Group produced subject merchandise during the POR and are collectively referred to as the ‘‘Thai packers’’: Andaman, CSF, CFF, PTN, PFF, TFC, TIS, and Sea Wealth. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices arrangements, and packing. Therefore, the Thai packers provided many more selling functions for Canadian sales than they provided for CEP sales, thus making the Canadian LOT more advanced than the CEP LOT. The Rubicon Group provided evidence on the record of this review supporting its contention that the selling activities that the Thai packers performed for Canadian customers were much more extensive than those performed for U.S. sales to its affiliate Rubicon Resources. While sales to Canada consumed a great deal of the Thai packers’ time and resources, the interaction between the Thai packers and Rubicon Resources appeared to be perfunctory, consuming very little of the Thai packers’ time and resources. See pages 11 through 20 of the Rubicon Group’s October 29, 2008, response to the Department’s supplemental Sections A, B, and C questionnaire. The record of this review also contains information concerning Wales & Co. Universe Ltd.’s (Wales’)5 activities with respect to sales made by the Thai packers to Rubicon Resources. According to Wales, it had limited communications with Rubicon Resources on behalf of the Thai packers because the Thai packers did not communicate directly with Rubicon Resources regarding U.S. sales made during the POR. As stated above, the Thai packers regularly communicated with unaffiliated customers to provide market analysis, negotiate sales opportunities, promote products, schedule in–person meetings, and develop new packaging designs. The Thai packers engaged in this level of service because it was necessary in order to compete for sales to unaffiliated customers. However, because the Thai packers created Rubicon Resources for the purpose of marketing and distributing their seafood products in the United States, and Rubicon Resources is required to purchase shrimp from the Thai packers, the Thai packers did not need to compete for business with Rubicon Resources as they did with unaffiliated customers. Accordingly, the Thai packers did not need to perform the same high level of service (e.g., market analysis, sales forecasting, or packaging design) for Rubicon Resources that they provided to unaffiliated customers, including Canadian customers, because Rubicon Resources performed these services for U.S. customers itself, using its sales and 5 Wales and Co. Universe Ltd. is a member of the Rubicon Group. VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 marketing staff based in the United States. Finally, the Rubicon Group provided documentation on the record of this review confirming the limited selling activities with respect to the Thai packers’ sales to Rubicon Resources (i.e., invoices and documentation associated with the shipment of the merchandise to Rubicon Resources) as well as documentation concerning Rubicon Resources’ sales to Canada (e.g., a sample report Rubicon Resources prepared to help a customer identify sales trends and make informed judgments on future purchases). Based on the above analysis, we considered the CEP LOT to be different from the Canadian LOT and to be at a less advanced stage of distribution than the Canadian LOT. Accordingly, we could not match CEP sales to sales at the same LOT for Canadian sales, nor could we determine a LOT adjustment based on the Rubicon Group’s Canadian sales because there was only one LOT in Canada. Therefore, it is not possible to determine if there was a pattern of consistent price differences between the sales on which NV is based and Canadian sales at the LOT of the export transaction. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Consequently, because the data available did not form an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment but the Canadian LOT was at a more advanced stage of distribution than the CEP LOT, we made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset was calculated as the lesser of: (1) the indirect selling expenses incurred on the third–country sales, or (2) the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting price in calculating CEP. D. Cost of Production Analysis We found that Pakfood had made sales below the cost of production (COP) in the 2004–2006 administrative review, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of the date of the initiation of the 2007–2008 administrative review, and such sales were disregarded. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 10669 (March 9, 2007); unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52065 (September 12, 2007). Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10005 of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Pakfood made sales in the home market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period. We found that the Rubicon Group had made sales below the COP in the LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of this proceeding as of the date of the initiation of the 2007– 2008 administrative review, and such sales were disregarded. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 69 FR 47100, 47107 (Aug. 4, 2004); unchanged in the Thai Shrimp LTFV Investigation Final. Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that the Rubicon Group 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 comparison market selling expenses). The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Pakfood and the Rubicon Group for the cost reporting period in their most recent supplemental section D questionnaire responses for the COP calculations, except for the following instances where the information was not appropriately quantified or valued: Pakfood We did not make any adjustments to Pakfood’s reported COP data. The Rubicon Group For CFF and CSF, we offset the total reported G&A expenses by the value of packaging scrap sold during the cost reporting period. In addition, for CFF, CSF and PTN, we adjusted the respective financial expense rate calculations to correct a minor calculation error and to reduce the applied interest income offset amount by the interest income earned from non– current assets. See Memorandum to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting from Angela Strom, ‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed Value E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 10006 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results the Rubicon Group,’’ dated March 2, 2009. 2. Test of Comparison–Market Sales Prices On a product–specific basis, we compared the weighted–average COP to the home market sales (for Pakfood) or third–country sales (for the Rubicon Group) of the foreign like product, adjusted where applicable, 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, adjusted for any applicable billing adjustments, were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES 3. Results of the COP Test In determining whether to disregard comparison–market sales made at prices below the COP, we examine, in accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) or the Act: 1) whether, within an extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and 2) whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the respondent’s comparison–market sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below–cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances the below–cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of a respondent’s sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below–cost sales because: 1) they were made within an extended period of time in ‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and 2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted–average COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act. We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent of Pakfood’s and the Rubicon Group’s comparison–market 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act. For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no useable comparison–market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs or CEPs to the CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See ‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value’’ section below. E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison–Market Prices 1. Pakfood We based NV for Pakfood on ex– factory or delivered prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market, or prices to affiliated customers in the home market that were determined to be at arm’s length. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments and discounts. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland freight and pre–sale warehousing expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 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 imputed credit expenses, bank/wire fee charges, commissions, and express mail charges, where appropriate. We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison–market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the other. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. Furthermore, 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 home market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 2. The Rubicon Group For the Rubicon Group, we calculated NV based on prices to unaffiliated customers. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments and rebates. We also made deductions for movement expenses, including inland freight (plant to warehouse and warehouse to port), warehousing, inland insurance, brokerage and handling, ocean freight (offset by freight refunds, PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 where appropriate), third–country inland insurance, third–country customs fees, third–country brokerage and handling expenses, and third– country warehousing expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. For third–country price–to-EP comparisons, we made circumstance–ofsale adjustments for differences in credit expenses, bank charges, and commissions, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. For third–country price–to-CEP comparisons, we made deductions for third–country credit expenses, bank charges, commissions, advertising expenses, and repacking expenses, pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. In addition, we made a CEP offset in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as discussed above in the ‘‘Level of Trade’’ section. We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison–market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the other. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the comparison market. If the commissions were granted in the comparison market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment 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. Furthermore, 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. F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based on comparison–market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for those frozen warmwater shrimp products for Pakfood and the Rubicon Group for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison–market sales, either because there were no useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of comparable products failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 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 SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For the Rubicon Group, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the methodology described in the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section, above, and 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. For comparisons to the Rubicon Group’s EP, we made circumstances–of-sale adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison–market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to CV, in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. Currency Conversion We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars 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. 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: dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Pakfood Public Company Limited / Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited / Takzin Samut Company Limited (collectively, Pakfood) ......... Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd. / Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. / Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd. / Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd. / Phattana Frozen Food Co., Ltd. / Seawealth Frozen Food Co. Ltd. / Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd. / Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd. /Wales & Co. Universe Limited (collectively, the Rubicon Group) ................ VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 4.25 4.64 Jkt 217001 Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Review–Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:6. 6This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual examination, excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA. Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin ACU Transport Co., Ltd. Ampai Frozen Food Co., Ltd. .................... A.S. Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd ..................... Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd. .................... Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co., Ltd. Assoc. Commercial Systems .................... A. Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd. ..... Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd. ............................ Bright Sea Co., Ltd. ...... C P Mdse ...................... C Y Frozen Food Co., Ltd. ............................ Chaiwarut Co., Ltd. ....... Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd. ............. Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd. ............................ Chue Eie Mong Eak Ltd. Part. ................... Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd. ......... Crystal Seafood ............ Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd. ............................ Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd. ........ Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd. ............................ Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd. .......... Euro–Asian International Seafoods Co., Ltd. .................... F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited ....................... Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd. .................... Findus (Thailand) Ltd. .. Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. ... Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd. .................... Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. ........... Gallant Ocean Seafood Corporation ............... Good Fortune Cold Storage Co., Ltd. ....... Good Luck Product Co., Ltd. ............................ PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4703 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 Sfmt 4703 Manufacturer/Exporter Gulf Coast Crab Intl ...... H.A.M. International Co., Ltd. .................... Heng Seafood Limited Partnership ................ Heritrade Co., Ltd. ........ HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd. I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd. .................... Inter–Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd. ....... Inter–Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd. ..... Intersia Foods Co., Ltd. K .D. Trading Co., Ltd. K Fresh ......................... KF Foods ...................... K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd. ............................ Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd. ......... Kingfisher Holdings Ltd. Kibun Trdg .................... Klang Co., Ltd. .............. Kitchens of the Ocean (Thailand) Ltd. ........... Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. ......... Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. .................... Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd. ............................ Leo Transports ............. Maersk Line .................. Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd. .................... Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd. ......... Marine Gold Products Limited ....................... May Ao Co., Ltd. .......... May Ao Foods Co., Ltd. N&N Foods Co., Ltd. .... Namprik Maesri Ltd. Part. ........................... Narong Seafood Co., Ltd. ............................ Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd. .................... Pacific Queen Co., Ltd. Penta Impex Co., Ltd. .. Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine ....................... Piti Seafoods Co., Ltd. Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd. ............. Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd. ........... Rayong Coldstorage (1987) Co., Ltd. ......... S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd. .................... S&P Aquarium .............. S&P Syndicate Public Company Ltd. ............ S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd. ............. S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. .................... S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd. SMP Foods Products Co., Ltd. .................... E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 10007 Percent Margin 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 10008 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin Samui Foods Company Limited ....................... Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd. ............................ Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd. .................... Seafresh Fisheries ........ Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd. .................... Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd. ............................ Siam Intersea Co., Ltd. Siam Marine Products Co. Ltd. ..................... Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd. .......... Siam Union Frozen Foods ........................ Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd. ........... Southport Seafood ........ STC Foodpak Ltd. ........ Suntechthai Intertrading Co., Ltd. .................... Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd. .................... Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd. .................... Surapon Seafood .......... Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd. ............. Suree Interfoods Co., Ltd. ............................ T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd. Tanaya International Co., Ltd. .................... Teppitak Seafood Co., Ltd. ............................ Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd. .................... Thai–Ger Marine Co., Ltd. ............................ Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd. .................... Thai I–Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. ......... Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd. ..... Thai Ocean Venture Co., Ltd. .................... Thai Patana Frozen ...... Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd. ........ Thai Royal Frozen Food Co. Ltd. ..................... Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd. ............................ Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd. ............................ Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd. .................... Thai Yoo Ltd., Part. ...... The Siam Union Frozen Food Co., Ltd. ........... The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. ............. Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd. ......... Transamut Food Co., Ltd. ............................ Tung Lieng Trdg ........... United Cold Storage Co., Ltd. .................... VerDate Nov<24>2008 15:28 Mar 06, 2009 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin V Thai Food Product .... Wales & Co. Universe Ltd. ............................ Xian–Ning Seafood Co., Ltd. ............................ Y2K Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. ............................ Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. .................... YHS Singapore Pte ...... ZAFCO TRDG .............. 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 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, 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. 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, 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 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 4.51 Jkt 217001 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. For the majority of the Rubicon Group’s and Pakfood’s U.S. sales, we note that these companies reported the PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 entered value for the U.S. sales in question. 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 certain of the Rubicon Group’s and Pakfood’s U.S. sales, we note that these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in question. We will calculate importer– specific per–unit duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. With respect to Pakfood’s and the Rubicon Group’s U.S. sales of shrimp with sauce, for which no entered value was reported, we will include the total quantity of the merchandise with sauce in the denominator of the calculation of the importer–specific rate because CBP will apply the per–unit duty rate to the total quantity of merchandise entered, including the sauce weight. 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 responsive companies which were not selected for individual examination, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the cash deposit 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 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 and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. 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 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– others rate effective during the POR (i.e., 5.95 percent) if there is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific company listed above7 will be that established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company–specific rate published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 5.34 percent, the all–others rate made effective by the Section 129 determination. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the 7 Effective January 16, 2009, there is no longer a cash deposit requirement for certain producers/ exporters in accordance with the Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in United States Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Thailand: Notice of Determination under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 74 FR 5638 (January 30, 2009) (Section 129 Determination). VerDate Nov<24>2008 18:25 Mar 06, 2009 Jkt 217001 relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221. Dated: March 2, 2009. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. E9–4924 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration A–552–802 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission and Request for Revocation, In Part, of the Third Administrative Review AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’), covering the period of review (‘‘POR’’) of February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. As discussed below, we preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer–specific assessment rates are above de minimis. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–6905. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: General Background On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on frozen PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10009 warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘Order’’). On February 4, 2008, the Department published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam for the period February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity To Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 2008). On February 29, 2008, we received requests to conduct administrative reviews of 145 companies from Petitioner,1 two companies from the Louisiana Shrimp Association (‘‘LSA’’), and requests by certain Vietnamese companies.2 See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the People’s Republic of China 73 FR 18739 (April 7, 2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). On April 7, 2008, the Department initiated an administrative review of 170 producers/exporters of subject merchandise from Vietnam. See Initiation Notice. However, after accounting for duplicate names and additional trade names associated with certain exporters, the number of companies upon which we initiated is actually 110 companies/groups. On April 8, 2008, the Department posted the separate rate certification and separate rate application on its website for Vietnamese exporters for whom a review was initiated to complete and submit to the Department. On April 14, 2008, May 5, 2008, and May 7, 2008, the Department received letters from Vinh Hoan Corporation (formerly Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd.) (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’), Kim Anh Co., Ltd. (‘‘Kim Anh’’), Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd., (‘‘Quoc Viet’’), and C.P. Vietnam Livestock Company Limited (‘‘CP Vietnam’’), respectively, indicating that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Of the 110 companies/groups upon which we initiated an administrative review, 78 companies did not submit separate rate certifications or 1 The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is the Petitioner. 2 Some of these requests created an overlap in the number of companies upon which an administrative review was requested. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 44 (Monday, March 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10000-10009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-4924]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A-549-822


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

[[Page 10001]]

individual examination, we have preliminarily determined a weighted-
average margin for those companies that were not individually examined.
    If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Johnson or David Goldberger, 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-
4929 and (202) 482-4136, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
Thailand. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 1, 2005). On February 4, 2008, 
the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand for the period 
February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008. See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 (February 4, 
2008). In response to timely requests from interested parties, pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2), to conduct an administrative review of 
the sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp made by numerous companies 
during the period of review (POR), the Department initiated an 
administrative review for 165 companies. These companies are listed in 
the Department's notice of initiation. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand: Notice of Initiation 
of Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 18754 (April 7, 2008).
    Between March and May 2008, the Department received submissions 
from certain companies that indicated they had no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR.
    Based upon the resources available to the Department, we determined 
that it was not practicable to examine all exporters/producers of 
subject merchandise for which a review was requested. As a result, on 
May 27, 2008, we selected the two largest producers/exporters of 
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand during the POR, Pakfood 
and the Rubicon Group, for individual examination in this segment of 
the proceeding. See Memorandum to James Maeder from Irina Itkin 
entitled, ``2007-2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Selection of Respondents for 
Individual Review,'' dated May 27, 2008. On May 28, 2008, we issued the 
antidumping duty questionnaire to Pakfood and the Rubicon Group.
    On July 7, 2008, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 
petitioner withdrew its request for review for the following eighteen 
companies: Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd.; Applied DB Ind; Chonburi LC; 
Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean)\1\; Haitai Seafood 
Co., Ltd.; High Way International Co., Ltd.; Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., 
Ltd.; Merkur Co., Ltd.; Ming Chao Ind Thailand; Nongmon SMJ Products; 
Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd.; SCT Co., Ltd.; Search & Serve; Smile Heart 
Foods Co., Ltd.; Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd.; Star Frozen Foods Co., 
Ltd.; Thai World Imports & Exports; and Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Gallant Ocean has not withdrawn its February 29, 2008, 
request for review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We received responses to sections A, B, C, and D of the 
questionnaire from Pakfood and the Rubicon Group in July and August 
2008.
    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 
(October 8, 2008).
    During the period September 2008 through January 2009, we issued to 
Pakfood and the Rubicon Group supplemental questionnaires regarding 
sections A, B, C, and D of the original questionnaire. We received 
responses to these questionnaires during the period October 2008 
through February 2009.
    On October 27, 2008, the Department issued a memorandum indicating 
that it intended to rescind the administrative review with respect to 
29 respondent companies, and it invited comments on this action from 
interested parties. See Memorandum to The File from Kate Johnson 
entitled ``Intent to Rescind in Part the Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
Thailand,'' dated October 27, 2008 (Intent to Rescind Memorandum). On 
November 3, 2008, and November 13, 2008, the Department received 
comments from 32 U.S. producers opposing the rescission with respect to 
the companies for which the petitioner withdrew its review request. On 
November 6, 2008, the petitioner responded to the comments filed on 
November 3, 2008.
    On December 19, 2008, we published a notice rescinding the 
administrative review with respect to 29 companies for the following 
reasons, where applicable: 1) the request for an administrative review 
for the company was withdrawn in a timely manner; 2) the company had no 
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR; 
or 3) although there appeared to be U.S. customs entries of subject 
merchandise, we determined that the entries were not reportable 
transactions. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
77612 (December 19, 2008). See also Intent to Rescind Memorandum.
    We conducted a verification of the Rubicon Group's cost responses 
in February 2009.

Scope of the Order

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

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

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the 
scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed 
from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in 
any count size. The products described above may be processed from any 
species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 
generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. 
Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, 
but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana 
prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn

[[Page 10002]]

(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.

Period of Review

    The POR is February 1, 2007, through January 31, 2008.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
Thailand 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, below.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (the Act), for Pakfood and the Rubicon Group we compared the 
EPs or CEPs of individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV 
of the foreign like product where there were sales made in the ordinary 
course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' 
section, below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Pakfood and the Rubicon Group 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 the comparison 
market for Pakfood (home market) and the Rubicon Group (Canada) within 
the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months 
prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the sale. 
Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the comparison 
market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, 
we compared U.S. sales of shrimp to sales of shrimp of the most similar 
foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. For the 
Rubicon Group, where there were no sales of identical or similar 
merchandise in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of 
trade to compare to U.S. sales, we made product comparisons using 
constructed value (CV).
    With respect to sales comparisons involving broken shrimp, we 
compared Pakfood's and the Rubicon Group's sales of broken shrimp in 
the United States to its sales of comparable quality shrimp in the 
comparison market. Where there were no sales of identical broken shrimp 
in the comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to 
compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales of broken shrimp to sales 
of the most similar broken shrimp made in the ordinary course of trade. 
Where there were no sales of identical or similar broken shrimp, we 
made product comparisons using CV.
    In making the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products 
based on the physical characteristics reported by Pakfood and the 
Rubicon Group 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 Pakfood, as well as certain U.S. sales 
made by the Rubicon Group, we used EP methodology, in accordance with 
section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold 
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 certain U.S. sales made by the Rubicon Group, we calculated CEP 
in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject 
merchandise was sold for the account of the Rubicon Group by its 
subsidiary in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers.

A. Pakfood

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

B. The Rubicon Group

    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, we calculated EP for 
those sales where the merchandise was sold to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation by the exporter or 
producer outside the United States. Where appropriate, we made 
adjustments to the starting price for billing adjustments and 
discounts. We made deductions for movement expenses in accordance with 
section

[[Page 10003]]

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign 
inland freight expenses, foreign warehousing expenses, foreign inland 
insurance expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, ocean 
freight expenses (offset by freight refunds, where appropriate), marine 
insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. customs 
duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing 
fees), and U.S. inland freight expenses (i.e., freight from port to 
warehouse).
    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 used the earlier of shipment date from 
Thailand to the customer or the U.S. affiliate's invoice date to the 
customer as the date of sale for CEP sales, in accordance with our 
practice. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 72 FR 52065 (September 12, 2007), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 11; 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 
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 10 (Thai Shrimp LTFV Investigation 
Final); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Structural Steel Beams from Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 2002), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.
    Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments, 
discounts and rebates. 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, foreign warehousing 
expenses, foreign inland insurance expenses, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses, ocean freight expenses (offset by freight refunds, 
where appropriate), marine insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and 
handling expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance 
fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. inland insurance expenses, 
U.S. inland freight expenses (i.e., 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 (e.g., bank charges, advertising, commissions, and imputed 
credit expenses), and indirect selling expenses (including inventory 
carrying costs and other indirect selling expenses).
    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 the Rubicon Group and its U.S. affiliate on 
their sales of the subject merchandise in the United States and the 
profit associated with those sales.

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. Based on this comparison, we 
determined that Pakfood had a viable home market during the POR. 
Consequently, we based NV on home market sales for Pakfood.
    Regarding the Rubicon Group, we determined that this respondent's 
aggregate volume of home market sales of the foreign like product was 
insufficient to permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the 
subject merchandise. Therefore, we used the Rubicon Group's sales to 
Canada, its largest third-country market, as the basis for comparison-
market sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.404.

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test

    During the POR, Pakfood sold the foreign like product to affiliated 
customers. To test whether these sales were made at arm's-length 
prices, we compared, on a product-specific basis, the starting prices 
of sales to affiliated and unaffiliated customers, net of all discounts 
and rebates, movement charges, direct selling expenses, and packing 
expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance with the 
Department's practice, where the price to the affiliated party was, on 
average, within a range of 98 to 102 percent of the price of the same 
or comparable merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, we determined 
that sales made to the affiliated party were at arm's length. See 
Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in the Ordinary Course 
of Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 2002) (establishing that the 
overall ratio calculated for an affiliate must be between 98 percent 
and 102 percent in order for sales to be considered in the ordinary 
course of trade and used in the NV calculation). Sales to affiliated 
customers in the comparison market that were not made at arm's-length 
prices were excluded from our analysis because we considered these 
sales to be outside the ordinary course of trade. See 19 CFR 
351.102(b).

C. Level of Trade

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

[[Page 10004]]

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. sales to 
sales at a different LOT in the comparison market. In comparing EP or 
CEP sales at a different LOT in the comparison market, where available 
data make it practicable, we make an LOT adjustment under section 
773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is 
at a more advanced stage of distribution than the LOT of the CEP and 
there is no basis for determining whether the difference in LOTs 
between NV and CEP affects price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 
was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided 
in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 
at 61732-33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Pakfood

    Pakfood reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through a 
single channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to distributors). We 
examined the selling activities performed for this channel and found 
that Pakfood performed the following selling functions: sales 
forecasting/market research, sales promotion/advertising, price 
negotiation, order processing, invoice issuance, payment receipt, 
delivery services, and packing. Accordingly, we find that Pakfood 
performed sales and marketing, and freight and delivery services at the 
same relative level of intensity for all 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 home market, Pakfood made sales to processors, 
distributors, retailers, and end-users. Pakfood stated that its home 
market sales were made through a single channel of distribution, 
regardless of customer category. We examined the selling activities 
performed for this channel, and found that Pakfood performed the 
following selling functions: sales forecasting/market research, sales 
promotion/advertising, price negotiation, order processing, invoice 
issuance, delivery services, payment receipt, and packing. Accordingly, 
we find that Pakfood performed sales and marketing, and freight and 
delivery services at the same relative level of intensity for all 
customers in the home market. Because all sales in the home market are 
made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily determine 
that there is one LOT in the home market.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers 
are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that sales to the 
U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as 
a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted.

2. The Rubicon Group

    The Rubicon Group reported that it made both EP and CEP sales in 
the U.S. market to distributors/wholesalers, retailers, and food 
service industry customers. For EP sales, the Rubicon Group reported 
sales through one channel of distribution (i.e., direct from the Thai 
exporters to unaffiliated U.S. customers). For CEP sales, the Rubicon 
Group reported that its U.S. affiliate made sales through two channels 
of distribution: 1) from a warehouse; and 2) direct shipments to 
customers (``drop shipments'').
    We examined the selling activities performed for each channel. For 
direct EP sales, the Rubicon Group reported the following selling 
functions: sales forecasting/market research, sales promotion/trade 
shows, inventory maintenance, order input/processing, freight and 
delivery arrangements, visits/calls and correspondence to customers, 
development of new packaging (with customer), packing and after-sales 
services. Accordingly, we found that the Rubicon Group performed sales 
and marketing, freight and delivery, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing activities. As there was only one channel of distribution 
for EP sales, we found that there was one LOT for EP sales.
    For both warehoused and drop-shipment CEP sales, the Rubicon Group 
reported the following selling functions: inventory maintenance, order 
input/processing, freight and delivery arrangements, and packing. As 
the selling functions performed for both warehoused and drop- shipment 
sales were identical, we found that there was one LOT for CEP sales.
    With respect to the Canadian market, the Rubicon Group reported 
sales to distributors/wholesalers, retailers, and end users. The 
Rubicon Group stated that its Canadian sales were made through two 
channels of distribution: 1) direct to Canadian customers; and 2) 
through its U.S. affiliate from a Canadian warehouse. We examined the 
reported selling activities and found that the Rubicon Group performed 
the following selling functions for direct sales to Canada: sales 
forecasting; market research; sales promotion; trade shows; inventory 
maintenance; order input/processing; freight and delivery arrangements; 
visits, calls and correspondence to customers; development of new 
packaging (with customer); packing; and after-sales services. For 
warehoused sales to Canada, we found that the Rubicon Group, via its 
U.S. affiliate, performed the following selling functions: sales 
forecasting; market research; advertising; sales promotion; trade 
shows; inventory maintenance; order input/processing; freight and 
delivery arrangements; visits, calls and correspondence to customers; 
development of new packaging and new markets (with customer); and 
after-sales services. Furthermore, we found that the Rubicon Group 
performed selling functions related to sales and marketing, freight and 
delivery, and inventory maintenance and warehousing at the same 
relative level of intensity for all customers in the comparison market. 
Therefore, based on our overall analysis, we found that all of the 
Rubicon Group's sales in the Canadian market constituted one LOT and 
that this LOT was the same as the LOT for EP sales. Consequently, we 
matched EP sales to comparison-market sales at the same LOT and no LOT 
adjustment was warranted.
    In comparing the Canadian LOT to the CEP LOT, we found that the 
selling activities performed by the Thai packers\4\ for CEP sales were 
significantly fewer than the selling activities that were performed for 
the Canadian sales. The Thai packers provided the following selling 
functions: sales forecasting; market research; sales promotion; 
advertising; trade shows; inventory maintenance; order input/
processing; freight and delivery arrangements; visits, calls and 
correspondence to customers; development of new packaging and new 
markets (with customer); packing; and after-sales services for Canadian 
sales. The only selling functions that the Thai packers provided for 
CEP sales were inventory maintenance, order input/processing, freight 
and delivery

[[Page 10005]]

arrangements, and packing. Therefore, the Thai packers provided many 
more selling functions for Canadian sales than they provided for CEP 
sales, thus making the Canadian LOT more advanced than the CEP LOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The following companies in the Rubicon Group produced 
subject merchandise during the POR and are collectively referred to 
as the ``Thai packers'': Andaman, CSF, CFF, PTN, PFF, TFC, TIS, and 
Sea Wealth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Rubicon Group provided evidence on the record of this review 
supporting its contention that the selling activities that the Thai 
packers performed for Canadian customers were much more extensive than 
those performed for U.S. sales to its affiliate Rubicon Resources. 
While sales to Canada consumed a great deal of the Thai packers' time 
and resources, the interaction between the Thai packers and Rubicon 
Resources appeared to be perfunctory, consuming very little of the Thai 
packers' time and resources. See pages 11 through 20 of the Rubicon 
Group's October 29, 2008, response to the Department's supplemental 
Sections A, B, and C questionnaire.
    The record of this review also contains information concerning 
Wales & Co. Universe Ltd.'s (Wales')\5\ activities with respect to 
sales made by the Thai packers to Rubicon Resources. According to 
Wales, it had limited communications with Rubicon Resources on behalf 
of the Thai packers because the Thai packers did not communicate 
directly with Rubicon Resources regarding U.S. sales made during the 
POR. As stated above, the Thai packers regularly communicated with 
unaffiliated customers to provide market analysis, negotiate sales 
opportunities, promote products, schedule in-person meetings, and 
develop new packaging designs. The Thai packers engaged in this level 
of service because it was necessary in order to compete for sales to 
unaffiliated customers. However, because the Thai packers created 
Rubicon Resources for the purpose of marketing and distributing their 
seafood products in the United States, and Rubicon Resources is 
required to purchase shrimp from the Thai packers, the Thai packers did 
not need to compete for business with Rubicon Resources as they did 
with unaffiliated customers. Accordingly, the Thai packers did not need 
to perform the same high level of service (e.g., market analysis, sales 
forecasting, or packaging design) for Rubicon Resources that they 
provided to unaffiliated customers, including Canadian customers, 
because Rubicon Resources performed these services for U.S. customers 
itself, using its sales and marketing staff based in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Wales and Co. Universe Ltd. is a member of the Rubicon 
Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Rubicon Group provided documentation on the record of 
this review confirming the limited selling activities with respect to 
the Thai packers' sales to Rubicon Resources (i.e., invoices and 
documentation associated with the shipment of the merchandise to 
Rubicon Resources) as well as documentation concerning Rubicon 
Resources' sales to Canada (e.g., a sample report Rubicon Resources 
prepared to help a customer identify sales trends and make informed 
judgments on future purchases).
    Based on the above analysis, we considered the CEP LOT to be 
different from the Canadian LOT and to be at a less advanced stage of 
distribution than the Canadian LOT. Accordingly, we could not match CEP 
sales to sales at the same LOT for Canadian sales, nor could we 
determine a LOT adjustment based on the Rubicon Group's Canadian sales 
because there was only one LOT in Canada. Therefore, it is not possible 
to determine if there was a pattern of consistent price differences 
between the sales on which NV is based and Canadian sales at the LOT of 
the export transaction. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
Furthermore, we have no other information that provides an appropriate 
basis for determining a LOT adjustment. Consequently, because the data 
available did not form an appropriate basis for making a LOT adjustment 
but the Canadian LOT was at a more advanced stage of distribution than 
the CEP LOT, we made a CEP offset to NV in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset was calculated as the lesser 
of: (1) the indirect selling expenses incurred on the third-country 
sales, or (2) the indirect selling expenses deducted from the starting 
price in calculating CEP.

D. Cost of Production Analysis

    We found that Pakfood had made sales below the cost of production 
(COP) in the 2004-2006 administrative review, the most recently 
completed segment of this proceeding as of the date of the initiation 
of the 2007-2008 administrative review, and such sales were 
disregarded. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: 
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 72 FR 10669 (March 9, 2007); unchanged in 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results and Final 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 
52065 (September 12, 2007). Thus, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that Pakfood made sales in the home market at prices below the 
cost of producing the merchandise in the current review period.
    We found that the Rubicon Group had made sales below the COP in the 
LTFV investigation, the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding as of the date of the initiation of the 2007-2008 
administrative review, and such sales were disregarded. See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 
Postponement of Final Determination, and Negative Preliminary Critical 
Circumstances Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 
from Thailand, 69 FR 47100, 47107 (Aug. 4, 2004); unchanged in the Thai 
Shrimp LTFV Investigation Final. Thus, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that the Rubicon Group 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 comparison market selling expenses).
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by Pakfood and the 
Rubicon Group for the cost reporting period in their most recent 
supplemental section D questionnaire responses for the COP 
calculations, except for the following instances where the information 
was not appropriately quantified or valued:

Pakfood

    We did not make any adjustments to Pakfood's reported COP data.

The Rubicon Group

    For CFF and CSF, we offset the total reported G&A expenses by the 
value of packaging scrap sold during the cost reporting period. In 
addition, for CFF, CSF and PTN, we adjusted the respective financial 
expense rate calculations to correct a minor calculation error and to 
reduce the applied interest income offset amount by the interest income 
earned from non-current assets. See Memorandum to Neal Halper, 
Director, Office of Accounting from Angela Strom, ``Cost of Production 
and Constructed Value

[[Page 10006]]

Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results the Rubicon 
Group,'' dated March 2, 2009.

2. Test of Comparison-Market Sales Prices

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the weighted-average COP 
to the home market sales (for Pakfood) or third-country sales (for the 
Rubicon Group) of the foreign like product, adjusted where applicable, 
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, adjusted for any applicable billing adjustments, were exclusive 
of any applicable movement charges, rebates, discounts, and direct and 
indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.

3. Results of the COP Test

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

1. Pakfood

    We based NV for Pakfood on ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the home market, or prices to affiliated 
customers in the home market that were determined to be at arm's 
length. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for billing adjustments 
and discounts. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting 
price for inland freight and pre-sale warehousing expenses, under 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    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 imputed 
credit expenses, bank/wire fee charges, commissions, and express mail 
charges, where appropriate. We also made adjustments in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-
market or U.S. sales where commissions were granted on sales in one 
market but not the other. Specifically, where commissions were granted 
in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward 
adjustment to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in 
the U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred 
in the comparison market.
    Furthermore, 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 home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

2. The Rubicon Group

    For the Rubicon Group, we calculated NV based on prices to 
unaffiliated customers. Where appropriate, we made adjustments for 
billing adjustments and rebates. We also made deductions for movement 
expenses, including inland freight (plant to warehouse and warehouse to 
port), warehousing, inland insurance, brokerage and handling, ocean 
freight (offset by freight refunds, where appropriate), third-country 
inland insurance, third-country customs fees, third-country brokerage 
and handling expenses, and third-country warehousing expenses, under 
section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    For third-country price-to-EP comparisons, we made circumstance-of-
sale adjustments for differences in credit expenses, bank charges, and 
commissions, pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act.
    For third-country price-to-CEP comparisons, we made deductions for 
third-country credit expenses, bank charges, commissions, advertising 
expenses, and repacking expenses, pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. 
In addition, we made a CEP offset in accordance with section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act, as discussed above in the ``Level of Trade'' 
section.
    We also made adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for 
indirect selling expenses incurred on comparison-market or U.S. sales 
where commissions were granted on sales in one market but not the 
other. Specifically, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market 
but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV 
for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; 
or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses incurred in the 
comparison market. If the commissions were granted in the comparison 
market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment 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.
    Furthermore, 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.

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for 
those frozen warmwater shrimp products for Pakfood and the Rubicon 
Group for which we could not determine the NV based on comparison-
market sales, either because there were no useable sales of a 
comparable product or all sales of comparable products failed the COP 
test, we based NV on CV.

[[Page 10007]]

    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 SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. For the Rubicon Group, we calculated the cost of materials and 
fabrication based on the methodology described in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section, above, and 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. For comparisons to 
the Rubicon Group's EP, we made circumstances-of-sale adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison-market sales 
from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to CV, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars 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.

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                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakfood Public Company Limited / Asia Pacific                       4.25
 (Thailand) Company Limited / Takzin Samut Company
 Limited (collectively, Pakfood)....................
Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd. / Chanthaburi Frozen Food                 4.64
 Co., Ltd. / Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd. /
 Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd. / Phattana Frozen Food
 Co., Ltd. / Seawealth Frozen Food Co. Ltd. /
 Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd. /
 Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd. /Wales & Co.
 Universe Limited (collectively, the Rubicon Group).
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the
 Following Companies:\6\............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins calculated
  for those companies selected for individual examination, excluding de
  minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/Exporter                   Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACU Transport Co., Ltd..............................                4.51
Ampai Frozen Food Co., Ltd..........................                4.51
A.S. Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd.....................                4.51
Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd..........                4.51
Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co., Ltd....                4.51
Assoc. Commercial Systems...........................                4.51
A. Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd.............                4.51
Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd..........                4.51
Bright Sea Co., Ltd.................................                4.51
C P Mdse............................................                4.51
C Y Frozen Food Co., Ltd............................                4.51
Chaiwarut Co., Ltd..................................                4.51
Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd..................                4.51
Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd..............                4.51
Chue Eie Mong Eak Ltd. Part.........................                4.51
Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd....................                4.51
Crystal Seafood.....................................                4.51
Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd..........................                4.51
  Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd..................                4.51
Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd...........................                4.51
Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd...................                4.51
Euro-Asian International Seafoods Co., Ltd..........                4.51
F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited........................                4.51
Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd......................                4.51
Findus (Thailand) Ltd...............................                4.51
Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd............                4.51
Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd.....................                4.51
Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd...................                4.51
Gallant Ocean Seafood Corporation...................                4.51
Good Fortune Cold Storage Co., Ltd..................                4.51
Good Luck Product Co., Ltd..........................                4.51
Gulf Coast Crab Intl................................                4.51
H.A.M. International Co., Ltd.......................                4.51
Heng Seafood Limited Partnership....................                4.51
Heritrade Co., Ltd..................................                4.51
HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd.............................                4.51
I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd......................                4.51
Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd....................                4.51
Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd..............                4.51
Intersia Foods Co., Ltd.............................                4.51
K .D. Trading Co., Ltd..............................                4.51
K Fresh.............................................                4.51
KF Foods............................................                4.51
K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd..........................                4.51
Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co.,                 4.51
 Ltd................................................
Kingfisher Holdings Ltd.............................                4.51
Kibun Trdg..........................................                4.51
Klang Co., Ltd......................................                4.51
Kitchens of the Ocean (Thailand) Ltd................                4.51
Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd......................                4.51
Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.......................                4.51
Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd...........................                4.51
Leo Transports......................................                4.51
Maersk Line.........................................                4.51
Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd........................                4.51
Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd...................                4.51
Marine Gold Products Limited........................                4.51
May Ao Co., Ltd.....................................                4.51
May Ao Foods Co., Ltd...............................                4.51
N&N Foods Co., Ltd..................................                4.51
Namprik Maesri Ltd. Part............................                4.51
Narong Seafood Co., Ltd.............................                4.51
Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd.......................                4.51
Pacific Queen Co., Ltd..............................                4.51
Penta Impex Co., Ltd................................                4.51
Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine........................                4.51
Piti Seafoods Co., Ltd..............................                4.51
Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd....................                4.51
Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd...................                4.51
Rayong Coldstorage (1987) Co., Ltd..................                4.51
S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd........................                4.51
S&P Aquarium........................................                4.51
S&P Syndicate Public Company Ltd....................                4.51
S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd..................                4.51
S.C.C. Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd......................                4.51
S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd...........                4.51
SMP Foods Products Co., Ltd.........................                4.51

[[Page 10008]]

 
Samui Foods Company Limited.........................                4.51
Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd...........................                4.51
Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd........................                4.51
Seafresh Fisheries..................................                4.51
Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd...................                4.51
Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd...........................                4.51
Siam Intersea Co., Ltd..............................                4.51
Siam Marine Products Co. Ltd........................                4.51
Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd.....................                4.51
Siam Union Frozen Foods.............................                4.51
Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd................                4.51
Southport Seafood...................................                4.51
STC Foodpak Ltd.....................................                4.51
Suntechthai Intertrading Co., Ltd...................                4.51
Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd.......................                4.51
Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd.....................                4.51
Surapon Seafood.....................................                4.51
Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd.................                4.51
Suree Interfoods Co., Ltd...........................                4.51
T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd.............................                4.51
Tanaya International Co., Ltd.......................                4.51
Teppitak Seafood Co., Ltd...........................                4.51
Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd......................                4.51
Thai-Ger Marine Co., Ltd............................                4.51
Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd.....................                4.51
Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd....................                4.51
Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd.............                4.51
Thai Ocean Venture Co., Ltd.........................                4.51
Thai Patana Frozen..................................                4.51
Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd..................                4.51
Thai Royal Frozen Food Co. Ltd......................                4.51
Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd...........................                4.51
Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd..........                4.51
Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd.........................                4.51
Thai Yoo Ltd., Part.................................                4.51
The Siam Union Frozen Food Co., Ltd.................                4.51
The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd..................                4.51
Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd..............                4.51
Transamut Food Co., Ltd.............................                4.51
Tung Lieng Trdg.....................................                4.51
United Cold Storage Co., Ltd........................                4.51
V Thai Food Product.................................                4.51
Wales & Co. Universe Ltd............................                4.51
Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd..........................                4.51
Y2K Frozen Foods Co., Ltd...........................                4.51
Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd........................                4.51
YHS Singapore Pte...................................                4.51
ZAFCO TRDG..........................................                4.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, 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. 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, 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.
    For the majority of the Rubicon Group's and Pakfood's U.S. sales, 
we note that these companies reported the entered value for the U.S. 
sales in question. 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 certain of the Rubicon Group's and Pakfood's U.S. sales, we 
note that these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S. 
sales in question. We will calculate importer-specific per-unit duty 
assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties 
calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total 
quantity of those sales. With respect to Pakfood's and the Rubicon 
Group's U.S. sales of shrimp with sauce, for which no entered value was 
reported, we will include the total quantity of the merchandise with 
sauce in the denominator of the calculation of the importer-specific 
rate because CBP will apply the per-unit duty rate to the total 
quantity of merchandise entered, including the sauce weight. 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 responsive companies which were not selected for individual 
examination, we will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted 
average of the cash deposit 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 
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 and 
for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
    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

[[Page 10009]]

during the POR produced by companies included in these final results of 
review for which the reviewed companies did not know that the 
merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading 
company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In such 
instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 
all-others rate effective during the POR (i.e., 5.95 percent) if there 
is no rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See 
Assessment Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific 
company listed above\7\ will be that established in the final results 
of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will be 
5.34 percent, the all-others rate made effective by the Section 129 
determination. These requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect 
until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Effective January 16, 2009, there is no longer a cash 
deposit requirement for certain producers/export