Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Notice of Intent to Revoke in Part, 39042-39045 [E9-18724]
Download as PDF
39042
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices
wreckfish fishery in or from the South
Atlantic EEZ.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
II. Method of Collection
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Paper applications, electronic reports,
and telephone calls are required from
participants, and methods of submittal
include Internet and facsimile
transmission of paper forms.
Proposed Information Collection;
Comment Request; Subsistence
Fishery for Pacific Halibut in Waters
Off Alaska: Registration and Marking
of Gear
III. Data
AGENCY: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
OMB Control Number: 0648–0262.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Non-profit
institutions; business or other for-profit
organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 4.
Estimated Time per Response: 15
minutes per transfer.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 1.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $162 in recordkeeping/reporting
costs.
IV. Request for Comments
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: July 31, 2009.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–18671 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
ACTION:
Notice.
SUMMARY: The Department of
Commerce, as part of its continuing
effort to reduce paperwork and
respondent burden, invites the general
public and other Federal agencies to
take this opportunity to comment on
proposed and/or continuing information
collections, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before October 5, 2009.
Direct all written comments
to Diana Hynek, Departmental
Paperwork Clearance Officer,
Department of Commerce, Room 7845,
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230 (or via the
Internet at dHynek@doc.gov).
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to Patsy A. Bearden, (907) 586–
7008 or patsy.bearden@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abstract
This submission seeks renewal of
collection-of-information requirements
that are part of the program for the
Pacific halibut subsistence fishery. The
program includes requirements for
registration to participate in the fishery
and the marking of certain types of gear
used in this fishery. The registration
requirement is intended to allow
qualified persons to practice the longterm, customary, and traditional harvest
of Pacific halibut for food in a
noncommercial manner. The gearmarking requirement aids in
enforcement and in actions related to
gear damage or loss. The registration
information may be submitted by an
individual or as a list of multiple
individuals from an Alaska Native
Tribe.
II. Method of Collection
Applications may be submitted online
or as e-mail attachments; paper forms
may be sent by mail or fax.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:54 Aug 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
III. Data
OMB Control Number: 0648–0460.
Form Number: None.
Type of Review: Regular submission.
Affected Public: Not-for-profit
institutions; State, local, and Tribal
government; and individuals or
households.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
27,963.
Estimated Time per Response:
Subsistence halibut registration
certificate (SHARC) application, 10
minutes; and subsistence halibut gear
marking, 15 minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 1,206.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $17,663.
IV. Request for Comments
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether
the proposed collection of information
is necessary for the proper performance
of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information shall have
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden
(including hours and cost) of the
proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on respondents, including through the
use of automated collection techniques
or other forms of information
technology.
Comments submitted in response to
this notice will be summarized and/or
included in the request for OMB
approval of this information collection;
they also will become a matter of public
record.
Dated: July 31, 2009.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–18672 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–549–822]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From Thailand: Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review and Notice of
Intent to Revoke in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2009.
SUMMARY: On March 24, 2009, the
Department of Commerce (the
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Department) published a notice of
initiation of a changed circumstances
review of the antidumping duty order
on frozen warmwater shrimp from
Thailand to consider whether it is
appropriate to revoke the order in part
with respect to two companies,
Phatthana Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (PFF)
and Sea Wealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd.
(Sea Wealth), pursuant to section
751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act), and 19 CFR
351.216(b) and 351.222. See Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
Thailand: Initiation of Antidumping
Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
74 FR 12308 (Mar. 24, 2009) (Initiation
Notice). Upon analyzing the information
provided by the two companies, we
preliminarily determine that PFF and
Sea Wealth should be revoked from the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from
Thailand.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Henry Almond; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 2, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–0049.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 1, 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) (Thai Shrimp Order).
Subsequent to the issuance of this
order, the Thai Government challenged
the Department’s practice of offsetting
dumped sales with non-dumped sales in
the LTFV investigation of certain frozen
warmwater shrimp from Thailand
before the World Trade Organization. In
November 2008, the Department
initiated a Section 129 proceeding to
reconsider this practice with respect to
Thai shrimp, and in January 2009 it
issued a final determination in that
proceeding which resulted in the
revocation of the order related to shrimp
produced and exported by two
entities—Thai I-Mei and the Rubicon
Group. See 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:54 Aug 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp From Thailand, 74 FR 5638,
5638 (Jan. 30, 2009) (Section 129
Implementation). For purposes of this
determination the Department defined
the Rubicon Group as consisting of the
following nine companies, which were
the group members existing at the time
of the LTFV investigation: Andaman
Seafood Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Frozen
Food Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Seafoods
Co., Ltd., Intersia Foods Co., Ltd.,
Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd., S.C.C.
Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Thailand
Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd.,
Thai International Seafoods Co., Ltd.,
and Wales & Co. Universe Limited. See
Section 129 Implementation, 74 FR at
5639.
On February 5, 2009, the Rubicon
Group requested that the Department
conduct an expedited changed
circumstances review under 19 CFR
351.221(c)(3)(iii) to consider also
revoking PFF and Sea Wealth from the
Thai Shrimp Order. According to the
Rubicon Group, although these two
companies were not included in the
Department’s margin calculations in the
LTFV investigation, the Department has
treated them as part of the Rubicon
Group in subsequent segments of this
proceeding. In this request, the Rubicon
Group also asked that any revocation for
PFF and Sea Wealth be made effective
January 16, 2009, the effective date of
the Section 129 Implementation.
On February 12, 2009, we requested
that the Rubicon Group clarify its
changed circumstances review request
to identify the relevant statutory
provision under which its request fell.
On February 13, 2009, the Rubicon
Group clarified its changed
circumstances review request, stating
that it would be appropriate for the
Department to evaluate its request using
either a ‘‘collapsing’’ analysis under 19
CFR 351.401(a) or the Department’s
‘‘successor-in-interest’’ analysis,
pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act
and 19 CFR 351.216(b).
On February 18, 2009, we requested
further information from the Rubicon
Group with respect to the four factors
examined by the Department in a
successor-in-interest determination:
Management; production facilities;
supplier relationships; and customer
base. On March 13, 2009, the Rubicon
Group submitted the requested
information.
On April 29, 2009, we placed
documents from the LTFV investigation
relating to the corporate structure of the
Rubicon Group as it existed during the
LTFV investigation on the record of this
changed circumstances review. On that
date, we also requested additional
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
39043
information from the Rubicon Group.
On May 27, 2009, the Rubicon Group
submitted the requested information.
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, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,1
deveined or not deveined, cooked or
raw, or otherwise processed in frozen
form.
The frozen warmwater shrimp and
prawn products included in the scope of
this order, regardless of definitions in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (HTSUS), are products
which are processed from warmwater
shrimp and prawns through freezing
and which are sold in any count size.
The products described above may be
processed from any species of
warmwater shrimp and prawns.
Warmwater shrimp and prawns are
generally classified in, but are not
limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some
examples of the farmed and wild-caught
warmwater species include, but are not
limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus
vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus
merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus
chinensis), giant river prawn
(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger
prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted
shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern
brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis),
southern pink shrimp (Penaeus
notialis), southern rough shrimp
(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern
white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue
shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western
white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis),
and Indian white prawn (Penaeus
indicus).
Frozen shrimp and prawns that are
packed with marinade, spices or sauce
are included in the scope of this order.
In addition, food preparations, which
are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain
more than 20 percent by weight of
shrimp or prawn are also included in
the scope of this order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1)
Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS
subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp
and prawns generally classified in the
Pandalidae family and commonly
referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any
state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and
prawns whether shell-on or peeled
(HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and
0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns
in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading
1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and
1 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which
includes the telson and the uropods.
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
39044
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
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.
Preliminary Results of Changed
Circumstances Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.216, the
Department will conduct a changed
circumstances review upon receipt of
information concerning, or request from
an interested party for review of, an
antidumping duty order which shows
changed circumstances sufficient to
warrant review of the order. In this case,
the Department found that the
information submitted by the Rubicon
Group provided evidence of changed
circumstances sufficient to warrant a
review. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at
12309. Thus, in accordance with section
751(b) of the Act, the Department
initiated a changed circumstances
review to determine whether the current
Rubicon Group is the successor-ininterest to the Rubicon Group as it
existed at the time of the LTFV
investigation. Id. In making a successorin-interest determination, the
Department examines several factors
including, but not limited to, changes in
the following: (1) Management; (2)
production facilities; (3) supplier
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:54 Aug 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
relationships; (4) customer base. See
Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results of
Changed Circumstances Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR
69941 (Nov. 18, 2005); and Notice of
Final Results of Changed-Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From
Japan, 67 FR 58 (Jan. 2, 2002). While no
single factor or combination of factors
will necessarily provide a dispositive
indication of a successor-in-interest
relationship, the Department will
generally consider the new company to
be the successor to the previous
company if the new company’s resulting
operation is not materially dissimilar to
that of its predecessor. See Fresh and
Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway:
Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 64 FR 9979 (Mar. 1, 1999); and
Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR
6944 (Feb. 4, 1994). Thus, if the
evidence demonstrates that, with
respect to the production and sale of
subject merchandise, the new company
operates as the same business entity as
the former company, the Department
will accord the new company the same
antidumping treatment as its
predecessor.
The Rubicon Group has submitted
information demonstrating that PFF and
Sea Wealth are fully integrated into the
Rubicon Group by virtue of being
owned and controlled by other Rubicon
Group companies and that the two
companies are strategically engaged
with the other Rubicon Group
companies in the production and sale of
subject merchandise to the United
States. See the July 29, 2009,
memorandum from Henry Almond,
Analyst, to James Maeder, Director,
entitled, ‘‘Successor-In-Interest
Determination for the Rubicon Group in
the Changed Circumstances Review of
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
Thailand’’ at pages 3–6 (Successor
Memo). Further, the addition of PFF and
Sea Wealth to the Rubicon Group has
not altered the Rubicon Group’s
production capacity or significantly
changed the Rubicon Group’s
production facilities. See the Successor
Memo at page 5. Finally, the Rubicon
Group continues to source its shrimp
from the same suppliers and sell its
shrimp to the same and similar
customers as it did during the POI. See
the Successor Memo at pages 5–6.
Based on the information submitted
by the Rubicon Group, we preliminary
find that there have been no significant
changes in any of the four factors
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
outlined above since the POI. Regarding
its management structure, the Rubicon
Group has submitted information
demonstrating that PFF and Sea Wealth
are fully integrated into the Rubicon
Group by virtue of being owned and
controlled by other Rubicon Group
companies and that the two companies
are involved with the other Rubicon
Group companies in the production and
sale of subject merchandise to the
United States. Because the Rubicon
Group has demonstrated that there has
been no change in the management of
the Rubicon Group as a result of the
addition of PFF and Sea Wealth, we
preliminarily find there has been no
significant change in the management of
the Rubicon Group since the POI.
Regarding the Rubicon Group’s
production capacity and facilities,
although the Rubicon Group has closed
one production facility and opened one
new facility since the POI, the group’s
overall production capacity and
production and packaging processes
have not changed since the POI. Thus,
based upon the information submitted
by the Rubicon Group, we preliminarily
find that there has been no significant
change in the Rubicion Group’s
production facilities since the POI.
Regarding the Rubicon Group’s supplier
relationships, the Rubicon Group has
submitted information demonstrating
that its suppliers and supplier
relationships have not changed since
the POI. Accordingly, we preliminarily
find that there has been no significant
change in the Rubicon Group’s
suppliers or supplier relationships since
the POI. Regarding the Rubicon Group’s
customer base, the Rubicon Group
submitted POI and current customer
lists which demonstrate that there has
been no significant change in its
customers since the POI. Based upon
this information, we preliminarily find
that there has been no significant
change in the Rubicon Group’s customer
base since the POI. For further
discussion of the four factors, see the
Successor Memo at pages 3–6.
Accordingly, we preliminarily
determine that the Rubicon Group in its
current form, including PFF and Sea
Wealth, is the successor-in-interest to
the Rubicon Group as it existed during
the POI of the LTFV investigation. Thus,
if these preliminary results are adopted
in our final results of this changed
circumstances review, we will consider
PFF and Sea Wealth to be part of the
Rubicon Group and, therefore, revoke
them from the Thai Shrimp Order.
This finding is consistent with our
treatment of these companies as a single
entity in the 06–07 Final Results, the
most recently completed administrative
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 5, 2009 / Notices
review. See Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp From Thailand: Final Results
and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 50933, 50937 (Aug. 29,
2008).
Finally, in its changed circumstances
review request the Rubicon Group
requested that any resulting revocation
for PFF and Sea Wealth be effective as
of January 16, 2009 (the effective date of
the Section 129 Implementation).
Consistent with our treatment of
companies excluded from antidumping
duty orders which are subject to
subsequent successor-in-interest
determinations, we will apply this
successor-in-interest determination
retroactively to the dates PFF and Sea
Wealth were formed and became part of
the Rubicon Group (i.e., August 31,
2005, for PFF and July 24, 2003, for Sea
Wealth). See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire
Rod From Italy: Notice of Final Results
of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Review, 71 FR
24643, 24644 (Apr. 26, 2006). Because
these dates are prior to January 16, 2009,
we find that it is appropriate to revoke
the antidumping duty order with
respect to frozen warmwater shrimp
produced and exported by PFF and Sea
Wealth as of January 16, 2009,
consistent with our treatment of the
other members of the Rubicon
Group.2 See Section 129
Implementation, 74 FR at 5639.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Public Comment
Parties wishing to comment on these
results must submit briefs to the
Department within 30 days after the
publication of this notice in the Federal
Register. Parties will have five days
subsequent to this due date to submit
rebuttal briefs. Parties who submit
comments or rebuttal briefs in this
proceeding are requested to submit with
the argument: (1) A statement of the
issue, and (2) a brief summary of the
argument (no longer than five pages,
including footnotes). Any requests for
hearing must be filed within 30 days of
the publication of this notice in the
Federal Register. In accordance with 19
CFR 351.216(e), the Department will
issue its final results of review within
270 days after the date on which the
changed circumstances review was
initiated (i.e., no later than December
21, 2009).
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
2 We note that this revocation will apply to
merchandise produced by any Rubicon Group
member and exported by PFF or Sea Wealth, as well
as to merchandise produced by PFF or Sea Wealth
and exported by any other Rubicon Group member.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:54 Aug 04, 2009
Jkt 217001
751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.216.
Dated: July 29, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E9–18724 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–580–810)
Welded ASTM A–312 Stainless Steel
Pipe from the Republic of Korea:
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 6, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–5050.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
39045
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), we
determine that it is not practicable to
complete the results of this review
within the original time limit. The
Department needs additional time to
analyze a significant amount of
information the parties submitted, and
to determine whether any additional
information is required. Therefore, in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act, the Department has decided to
extend the time limit for the preliminary
results from 245 days to 365 days. The
preliminary results will now be due no
later than December 31, 2009. Unless
extended, the final results continue to
be due 120 days after the publication of
the preliminary results, pursuant to
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19
CFR 351.213(h)(1) of the Department’s
regulations.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A)
and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: July 27, 2009.
John M. Andersen,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations.
[FR Doc. E9–18729 Filed 8–4–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
On February 2, 2009, the Department
of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published
a notice of initiation of an
administrative review of Welded ASTM
A–312 Stainless Steel Pipe from the
Republic of Korea covering the period
December 1, 2007 through November
30, 2008. See Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part, 74 FR 5821 (February 2, 2009). The
preliminary results of this
administrative review are currently due
no later than September 2, 2009.
International Trade Administration
[A–403–801]
Notice of Initiation and Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Fresh and
Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Initiation of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Fresh and
Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway
Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
‘‘Act’’), the Department shall issue
preliminary results in an administrative
review of an antidumping duty order
within 245 days after the last day of the
anniversary month of the order for
which the administrative review was
requested. However, if the Department
determines that it is not practicable to
complete the review within the
aforementioned specified time limits,
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and
19 CFR 351.213(h)(2) allow the
Department to extend the 245-day
period to 365 days.
SUMMARY: In response to a request from
Nordic Group AS, an exporter of fresh
and chilled Atlantic Salmon from
Norway, and pursuant to section 751(b)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), and 19 CFR 351.216 and
351.221(c) (3), the Department is
initiating a changed circumstances
review of the antidumping order on
fresh and chilled Atlantic Salmon from
Norway. Based on the information
received, we preliminarily determine
that Nordic Group AS is the successor–
in-interest to Nordic Group A/L for
purposes of determining antidumping
duty liability. Interested parties are
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05AUN1.SGM
05AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 5, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39042-39045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18724]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-549-822]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review and Notice of
Intent to Revoke in Part
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: August 5, 2009.
SUMMARY: On March 24, 2009, the Department of Commerce (the
[[Page 39043]]
Department) published a notice of initiation of a changed circumstances
review of the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from
Thailand to consider whether it is appropriate to revoke the order in
part with respect to two companies, Phatthana Frozen Food Co., Ltd.
(PFF) and Sea Wealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (Sea Wealth), pursuant to
section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and
19 CFR 351.216(b) and 351.222. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
Thailand: Initiation of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review,
74 FR 12308 (Mar. 24, 2009) (Initiation Notice). Upon analyzing the
information provided by the two companies, we preliminarily determine
that PFF and Sea Wealth should be revoked from the antidumping duty
order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry Almond; AD/CVD Operations,
Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0049.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 1, 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) (Thai Shrimp
Order).
Subsequent to the issuance of this order, the Thai Government
challenged the Department's practice of offsetting dumped sales with
non-dumped sales in the LTFV investigation of certain frozen warmwater
shrimp from Thailand before the World Trade Organization. In November
2008, the Department initiated a Section 129 proceeding to reconsider
this practice with respect to Thai shrimp, and in January 2009 it
issued a final determination in that proceeding which resulted in the
revocation of the order related to shrimp produced and exported by two
entities--Thai I-Mei and the Rubicon Group. See 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, 5638
(Jan. 30, 2009) (Section 129 Implementation). For purposes of this
determination the Department defined the Rubicon Group as consisting of
the following nine companies, which were the group members existing at
the time of the LTFV investigation: Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd.,
Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd.,
Intersia Foods Co., Ltd., Phatthana Seafood Co., Ltd., S.C.C. Frozen
Seafood Co., Ltd., Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd., Thai
International Seafoods Co., Ltd., and Wales & Co. Universe Limited. See
Section 129 Implementation, 74 FR at 5639.
On February 5, 2009, the Rubicon Group requested that the
Department conduct an expedited changed circumstances review under 19
CFR 351.221(c)(3)(iii) to consider also revoking PFF and Sea Wealth
from the Thai Shrimp Order. According to the Rubicon Group, although
these two companies were not included in the Department's margin
calculations in the LTFV investigation, the Department has treated them
as part of the Rubicon Group in subsequent segments of this proceeding.
In this request, the Rubicon Group also asked that any revocation for
PFF and Sea Wealth be made effective January 16, 2009, the effective
date of the Section 129 Implementation.
On February 12, 2009, we requested that the Rubicon Group clarify
its changed circumstances review request to identify the relevant
statutory provision under which its request fell. On February 13, 2009,
the Rubicon Group clarified its changed circumstances review request,
stating that it would be appropriate for the Department to evaluate its
request using either a ``collapsing'' analysis under 19 CFR 351.401(a)
or the Department's ``successor-in-interest'' analysis, pursuant to
section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b).
On February 18, 2009, we requested further information from the
Rubicon Group with respect to the four factors examined by the
Department in a successor-in-interest determination: Management;
production facilities; supplier relationships; and customer base. On
March 13, 2009, the Rubicon Group submitted the requested information.
On April 29, 2009, we placed documents from the LTFV investigation
relating to the corporate structure of the Rubicon Group as it existed
during the LTFV investigation on the record of this changed
circumstances review. On that date, we also requested additional
information from the Rubicon Group. On May 27, 2009, the Rubicon Group
submitted the requested information.
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,\1\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which includes
the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the
scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed
from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in
any count size. The products described above may be processed from any
species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are
generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family.
Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include,
but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana
prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant
river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus
monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown
shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis),
southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white
shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western
white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus
indicus).
Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or
sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food
preparations, which are not ``prepared meals,'' that contain more than
20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope
of this order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS
subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified
in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp,
in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-
on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4)
shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10);
(5) dried shrimp and
[[Page 39044]]
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.
Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216, the
Department will conduct a changed circumstances review upon receipt of
information concerning, or request from an interested party for review
of, an antidumping duty order which shows changed circumstances
sufficient to warrant review of the order. In this case, the Department
found that the information submitted by the Rubicon Group provided
evidence of changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. See
Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 12309. Thus, in accordance with section
751(b) of the Act, the Department initiated a changed circumstances
review to determine whether the current Rubicon Group is the successor-
in-interest to the Rubicon Group as it existed at the time of the LTFV
investigation. Id. In making a successor-in-interest determination, the
Department examines several factors including, but not limited to,
changes in the following: (1) Management; (2) production facilities;
(3) supplier relationships; (4) customer base. See Brake Rotors From
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 69941 (Nov. 18, 2005);
and Notice of Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Polychloroprene Rubber From Japan, 67 FR 58
(Jan. 2, 2002). While no single factor or combination of factors will
necessarily provide a dispositive indication of a successor-in-interest
relationship, the Department will generally consider the new company to
be the successor to the previous company if the new company's resulting
operation is not materially dissimilar to that of its predecessor. See
Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon From Norway: Final Results of Changed
Circumstances Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 64 FR 9979 (Mar.
1, 1999); and Industrial Phosphoric Acid From Israel: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 59 FR 6944 (Feb. 4,
1994). Thus, if the evidence demonstrates that, with respect to the
production and sale of subject merchandise, the new company operates as
the same business entity as the former company, the Department will
accord the new company the same antidumping treatment as its
predecessor.
The Rubicon Group has submitted information demonstrating that PFF
and Sea Wealth are fully integrated into the Rubicon Group by virtue of
being owned and controlled by other Rubicon Group companies and that
the two companies are strategically engaged with the other Rubicon
Group companies in the production and sale of subject merchandise to
the United States. See the July 29, 2009, memorandum from Henry Almond,
Analyst, to James Maeder, Director, entitled, ``Successor-In-Interest
Determination for the Rubicon Group in the Changed Circumstances Review
of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand'' at pages 3-6
(Successor Memo). Further, the addition of PFF and Sea Wealth to the
Rubicon Group has not altered the Rubicon Group's production capacity
or significantly changed the Rubicon Group's production facilities. See
the Successor Memo at page 5. Finally, the Rubicon Group continues to
source its shrimp from the same suppliers and sell its shrimp to the
same and similar customers as it did during the POI. See the Successor
Memo at pages 5-6.
Based on the information submitted by the Rubicon Group, we
preliminary find that there have been no significant changes in any of
the four factors outlined above since the POI. Regarding its management
structure, the Rubicon Group has submitted information demonstrating
that PFF and Sea Wealth are fully integrated into the Rubicon Group by
virtue of being owned and controlled by other Rubicon Group companies
and that the two companies are involved with the other Rubicon Group
companies in the production and sale of subject merchandise to the
United States. Because the Rubicon Group has demonstrated that there
has been no change in the management of the Rubicon Group as a result
of the addition of PFF and Sea Wealth, we preliminarily find there has
been no significant change in the management of the Rubicon Group since
the POI. Regarding the Rubicon Group's production capacity and
facilities, although the Rubicon Group has closed one production
facility and opened one new facility since the POI, the group's overall
production capacity and production and packaging processes have not
changed since the POI. Thus, based upon the information submitted by
the Rubicon Group, we preliminarily find that there has been no
significant change in the Rubicion Group's production facilities since
the POI. Regarding the Rubicon Group's supplier relationships, the
Rubicon Group has submitted information demonstrating that its
suppliers and supplier relationships have not changed since the POI.
Accordingly, we preliminarily find that there has been no significant
change in the Rubicon Group's suppliers or supplier relationships since
the POI. Regarding the Rubicon Group's customer base, the Rubicon Group
submitted POI and current customer lists which demonstrate that there
has been no significant change in its customers since the POI. Based
upon this information, we preliminarily find that there has been no
significant change in the Rubicon Group's customer base since the POI.
For further discussion of the four factors, see the Successor Memo at
pages 3-6.
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that the Rubicon Group in
its current form, including PFF and Sea Wealth, is the successor-in-
interest to the Rubicon Group as it existed during the POI of the LTFV
investigation. Thus, if these preliminary results are adopted in our
final results of this changed circumstances review, we will consider
PFF and Sea Wealth to be part of the Rubicon Group and, therefore,
revoke them from the Thai Shrimp Order.
This finding is consistent with our treatment of these companies as
a single entity in the 06-07 Final Results, the most recently completed
administrative
[[Page 39045]]
review. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final
Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 73 FR 50933, 50937 (Aug. 29, 2008).
Finally, in its changed circumstances review request the Rubicon
Group requested that any resulting revocation for PFF and Sea Wealth be
effective as of January 16, 2009 (the effective date of the Section 129
Implementation). Consistent with our treatment of companies excluded
from antidumping duty orders which are subject to subsequent successor-
in-interest determinations, we will apply this successor-in-interest
determination retroactively to the dates PFF and Sea Wealth were formed
and became part of the Rubicon Group (i.e., August 31, 2005, for PFF
and July 24, 2003, for Sea Wealth). See, e.g., Stainless Steel Wire Rod
From Italy: Notice of Final Results of Changed Circumstances
Antidumping Duty Review, 71 FR 24643, 24644 (Apr. 26, 2006). Because
these dates are prior to January 16, 2009, we find that it is
appropriate to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to frozen
warmwater shrimp produced and exported by PFF and Sea Wealth as of
January 16, 2009, consistent with our treatment of the other members of
the Rubicon Group.\2\ See Section 129 Implementation, 74 FR at 5639.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that this revocation will apply to merchandise
produced by any Rubicon Group member and exported by PFF or Sea
Wealth, as well as to merchandise produced by PFF or Sea Wealth and
exported by any other Rubicon Group member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Comment
Parties wishing to comment on these results must submit briefs to
the Department within 30 days after the publication of this notice in
the Federal Register. Parties will have five days subsequent to this
due date to submit rebuttal briefs. Parties who submit comments or
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with the
argument: (1) A statement of the issue, and (2) a brief summary of the
argument (no longer than five pages, including footnotes). Any requests
for hearing must be filed within 30 days of the publication of this
notice in the Federal Register. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216(e),
the Department will issue its final results of review within 270 days
after the date on which the changed circumstances review was initiated
(i.e., no later than December 21, 2009).
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with
sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216.
Dated: July 29, 2009.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E9-18724 Filed 8-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P