Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, Notice of Intent to Rescind Review in Part, and Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 12175-12188 [2010-5590]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 49 (Monday, March 15, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12175-12188]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-840]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 
Review, Notice of Intent to Rescind Review in Part, and Notice of 
Intent to Revoke Order in Part

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting an 
administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen 
warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from India with respect to 159 companies.\1\ 
The respondents which the Department selected for individual 
examination are Devi Sea Foods Limited (Devi), Falcon Marine Exports 
Limited (Falcon), and the Liberty Group.\2\ The respondents which were 
not selected for individual examination are listed in the ``Preliminary 
Results of Review'' section of this notice. This is the fourth

[[Page 12176]]

administrative review of this order. The period of review (POR) is 
February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure does not include those companies for which the 
Department is rescinding the administrative review.
    \2\ The Liberty Group consists of the following companies: Devi 
Marine Food Exports Private Limited, Kader Exports Private Limited, 
Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Liberty Frozen 
Foods Private Limited, Liberty Oil Mills Ltd., Premier Marine 
Products, and Universal Cold Storage Private Limited (collectively, 
``Liberty Group'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales made by Devi have not been 
made at below normal value (NV), while those made by Falcon and the 
Liberty Group have been made at below NV, and, therefore, are subject 
to antidumping duties. In addition, based on the preliminary results 
for the respondents selected for individual examination, we have 
preliminarily determined a margin for those companies that were not 
individually examined. Finally, we have also preliminarily determined 
to revoke the antidumping duty order with respect to shrimp from India 
produced and exported by Devi.
    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 15, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry Almond or Blaine Wiltse, 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 or (202) 482-6345, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
India. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from India, 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 2005) (Shrimp Order). On February 4, 
2009, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of 
opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty 
order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India for the period 
February 1, 2008, through January 31, 2009. See Antidumping or 
Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; 
Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 74 FR 6013 (Feb. 4, 
2009). In response to timely requests from interested parties pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2) to conduct an administrative review of 
the U.S. sales of shrimp by numerous Indian producers/exporters, the 
Department published a notice of initiation of administrative review 
for 332 companies. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, 
India and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews, 74 
FR 15699 (Apr. 7, 2009) (Initiation Notice).
    In the Initiation Notice, we indicated that the Department would 
select mandatory respondents for individual examination based upon CBP 
entry data, and that we would limit the respondents selected for 
individual examination in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). See Initiation Notice, 74 FR 
at 15708. In April 2009, we received comments on the issue of 
respondent selection from the Marine Products Export Development 
Authority, the Seafood Exporters Association of India, and the Embassy 
of India, as well as from Devi, Falcon, the Domestic Processors,\3\ and 
the petitioner.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Domestic Processors consist of the American Shrimp 
Processors Association and the Louisiana Shrimp Association.
    \4\ The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April and May 2009, we received statements from 46 companies 
that indicated that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. During these months, we also received 
requests from the petitioner and Domestic Processors requesting that 
the Department determine whether antidumping duties had been absorbed 
by the respondents that were to be required to participate in this 
review.
    In May 2009, after considering the resources available to the 
Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine all 
exporters/producers of subject merchandise for which a review was 
requested. See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 
Operations, from Holly Phelps, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 
entitled: ``2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Selection of Respondents for 
Individual Review,'' dated May 13, 2009 (Respondent Selection Memo). As 
a result, we selected the three largest producers/exporters of certain 
frozen warmwater shrimp from India during the POR (i.e., Devi, Falcon, 
and the Liberty Group) for individual examination in this segment of 
the proceeding. Accordingly, we issued the antidumping duty 
questionnaire to these companies on May 14, 2009.
    In June and July 2009, we received responses from Devi, Falcon, and 
the Liberty Group to section A (i.e., the section related to general 
information), sections B and C (i.e., the sections covering comparison 
market and U.S. sales, respectively), and section D (i.e., the section 
covering cost of production (COP)) of the questionnaire. Also in July 
2009, the petitioner withdrew its requests for review of 144 companies, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and we issued a supplemental 
questionnaire to the Liberty Group regarding the products sold in its 
third country markets.
    In August and September 2009, we issued supplemental sales and cost 
questionnaires to each respondent, and Devi and the Liberty Group 
responded to these questionnaires. Also, in September 2009, the 
Department requested that Devi submit proof that its unaffiliated 
purchasers paid the antidumping duties assessed on its POR entries in 
order to determine whether duty absorption occurred.
    On October 20, 2009, the Department extended the preliminary 
results in the current review to no later than March 1, 2010. See 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: Notice of 
Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the Fourth 
Administrative Reviews, 74 FR 53700 (Oct. 20, 2009).
    From October through December 2009, the Department issued 
additional supplemental sales questionnaires to Devi and Falcon, as 
well as a supplemental cost questionnaire to Devi. Also, in these 
months each of the respondents submitted responses to each of the 
Department's outstanding requests for information, and Devi responded 
to the Department's duty absorption inquiry. From December 9 through 
11, 2009, the Department verified the U.S. sales data reported by 
Devi's U.S. affiliate, Devi Seafoods, Inc. (Devi Inc.).
    In January 2010, the Department issued a second supplemental sales 
questionnaire and a third supplemental cost questionnaire to the 
Liberty Group, and the Liberty Group responded to these questionnaires.
    In February 2010, the Department verified the sales data reported 
by Devi in India and selected Japan as the appropriate third country 
comparison market for both Falcon and the Liberty Group. See the 
Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from 
Holly Phelps, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ``2008-
2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from India - Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Market 
for Falcon Marine Exports Limited,'' dated February 26, 2010 (Third 
Country Market Memo).

[[Page 12177]]

Also in this month, Falcon and the Liberty Group submitted updated 
sales information at the Department's request. In March 2010, the 
Department plans to verify the cost data reported by Devi in India.
    As explained in the memorandum from the Deputy Assistant Secretary 
for Import Administration, the Department has exercised its discretion 
to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal 
Government from February 5, through February 12, 2010. Thus, all 
deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by seven 
days. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review 
is now March 8, 2010. See Memorandum to the Record from Ronald 
Lorentzen, DAS for Import Administration, regarding ``Tolling of 
Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During 
the Recent Snowstorm,'' dated February 12, 2010.

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp 
and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised 
(produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, 
tail-on or tail-off,\5\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which includes 
the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the 
scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed 
from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in 
any count size.
    The products described above may be processed from any species of 
warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally 
classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 
examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but 
are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 
(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river 
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), 
redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp 
(Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern 
rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp 
(Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white 
shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 
indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food 
preparations, which are not ``prepared meals,'' that contain more than 
20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope 
of this order.
    Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (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 ten percent of 
the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being 
frozen; and 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after 
application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 
product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting 
above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, 
and par-fried.
    The products covered by this order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 
1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, 
but rather the written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Review

    On July 6, 2009, the petitioner withdrew its requests for an 
administrative review for each of the following 133 companies within 
the time limits set forth in 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1):
1) A.S. Marine Industries Pvt Ltd.
2) Adani Exports Ltd
3) Aditya Udyog
4) Agri Marine Exports Ltd.
5) AL Mustafa Exp & Imp
6) Alapatt Marine Exports
7) All Seas Marine P. Ltd.
8) Alsa Marine & Harvests Ltd.
9) Ameena Enterprises
10) Amison Foods Ltd.
11) Amison Seafoods Ltd.
12) Anjani Marine Traders
13) Aqua Star Marine Foods
14) Arsha Seafood Exports Pvt. Ltd.
15) ASF Seafoods
16) Ashwini Frozen Foods
17) Aswin Associates
18) Balaji Seafood Exports I Ltd.
19) Bell Foods (Marine Division)
20) Bharat Seafoods
21) Bhisti Exports
22) Bilal Fish Suppliers
23) Capital Freezing Complex
24) Cham Exports Ltd.
25) Cham Ocean Treasures Co., Ltd.
26) Cham Trading Organization
27) Chand International
28) Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div.)
29) Danda Fisheries
30) Dariapur Aquatic Pvt. Ltd.
31) Deepmala Marine Exports
32) Dhanamjaya Impex P. Ltd.
33) Dorothy Foods
34) El-Te Marine Products
35) Excel Ice Services/Chirag Int'l
36) Firoz & Company
37) Freeze Engineering Industries (Pvt. Ltd.)
38) Gajula Exim P. Ltd.
39) Gausia Cold Storage P. Ltd.
40) Global Sea Foods & Hotel Ltd.
41) Goan Bounty
42) Gold Farm Foods (P) Ltd.
43) Golden Star Cold Storage
44) Gopal Seafoods
45) Gtc Global Ltd.
46) HA & R Enterprises
47) Hanswati Exports P. Ltd.
48) HMG Industries Ltd.
49) Honest Frozen Food Company
50) India CMS Adani Exports
51) India Seafoods
52) Indian Seafood Corporation
53) Interfish
54) InterSea Exports Corporation
55) J R K Seafoods Pvt. Ltd.
56) Kaushalya Aqua Marine Product Exports Pvt. Ltd.
57) Keshodwala Foods
58) Key Foods
59) King Fish Industries
60) Konkan Fisheries Pvt. Ltd.
61) Lakshmi Marine Products
62) Lansea Foods Pvt. Ltd.
63) Laxmi Narayan Exports
64) Lotus Sea Farms
65) M K Exports
66) M. R. H. Trading Company
67) Malabar Marine Exports

[[Page 12178]]

68) Mamta Cold Storage
69) Marina Marine Exports
70) Marine Food Packers
71) Miki Exports International
72) Mumbai Kamgar MGSM Ltd.
73) N.C. Das & Company
74) Naik Ice & Cold Storage
75) Nas Fisheries Pvt. Ltd.
76) National Seafoods Company
77) National Steel
78) National Steel & Agro Ind.
79) New Royal Frozen Foods
80) Noble Aqua Pvt. Ltd.
81) Nsil Exports
82) Omsons Marines Ltd.
83) Padmaja Exports
84) Partytime Ice Pvt. Ltd.
85) Philips Foods India Pvt. Ltd.
86) R K Ice & Cold Storage
87) R F. Exports
88) Rahul Foods (GOA)
89) Rahul International
90) Raj International
91) Ramalmgeswara Proteins & Foods Ltd.
92) Rameshwar Cold Storage
93) Ravi Frozen Foods Ltd.
94) Regent Marine Industries
95) Relish Foods
96) Royal Link Exports
97) Rubian Exports
98) Ruby Marine Foods
99) Ruchi Worldwide
100) S K Exports (P) Ltd.
101) SS International
102) Sabri Food Products
103) Salet Seafoods Pvt Ltd.
104) Samrat Middle East Exports (P) Ltd.
105) Sarveshwari Ice & Cold Storage P Ltd.
106) Satyam Marine Exports
107) Sea Rose Marines (P) Ltd.
108) Sealand Fisheries Ltd.
109) Seaperl Industries
110) Sharat Industries Ltd.
111) Shimpo Exports
112) Shipper Exporter National Steel
113) Siddiq Seafoods
114) Skyfish
115) SLS Exports Pvt. Ltd.
116) Sonia Fisheries
117) Sourab
118) Sreevas Export Enterprises
119) Sri Sidhi Freezers & Exporters Pvt. Ltd.
120) Star Fish Exports
121) Supreme Exports
122) The Canning Industries (Cochin) Ltd.
123) Torry Harris Seafoods Pvt. Ltd.
124) Tri Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd.
125) Trinity Exports
126) Tri-Tee Seafood Company
127) Ulka Seafoods (P) Ltd.
128) Upasana Exports
129) V Marine Exports
130) Varnita Cold Storage
131) Vijayalaxmi Seafoods
132) Winner Seafoods
133) Z A Food Products
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Secretary will rescind an 
administrative review if a party that requested a review withdraws the 
request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of 
initiation. The petitioner's requests for administrative review were 
timely withdrawn for all 133 companies listed above, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.213 (d)(1). Therefore, because no other interested party 
requested a review for these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(1), the Department is rescinding this review on 133 of the 
companies for which the request for administrative review was 
withdrawn.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In addition to the 133 companies noted above, the petitioner 
also withdrew its request for administrative review for the 
following 11 companies: 1) Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports, 2) Baby 
Marine Exports, 3) Baby Marine Products, 4) Baraka Overseas Traders, 
5) Gajula Exim P. Ltd., 6) Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, 7) Premier 
Exports International, 8) Premier Marine Foods, 9) Sagar Samrat 
Seafoods, 10) Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd., and 11) Vaibhav Sea 
Foods. However, there are outstanding review requests from other 
interested parties for each of these companies. Therefore, the 
review cannot be rescinded with respect to these companies based on 
the petitioner's withdrawal of its request for review. Nonetheless, 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we are preliminarily rescinding 
the review for the first five companies listed above because they 
reported that they had no shipments of subject merchandise during 
the POR. See below for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notice of Intent to Rescind Review in Part

    Furthermore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we 
preliminarily intend to rescind the review in part with respect to the 
following 35 companies because these companies\7\ certified that they 
had no shipments or sales of subject merchandise during the POR:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The Department also received statements of no shipment form 
the following three companies: Diamond Seafood Exports, Edhayam 
Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd., and Theva & Company. However, the Department 
collapsed the members of the Kadalkanny Group, which consists of 
these three companies and Kadalkanny Frozen Foods. See Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Partial rescission of Ntidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 6125, 6126 (Feb. 1, 2008) (AR2 
Rescission Notice). Therefore, because there remains an outstanding 
request for review for Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, we are not 
rescinding the review for the Kadalkanny Group collectively, or 
these three companies individually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Abad Fisheries
2) Allanna Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd.
3) Allansons Ltd.
4) Amulya Sea Foods
5) Anjaneya Seafoods
6) Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports
7) Baby Marine Exports
8) Baby Marine International
9) Baby Marine Products
10) Baby Marine Sarass
11) Baraka Overseas Traders
12) Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd.
13) BMR Exports
14) Coreline Exports
15) Frigerio Conserva Allana Ltd.
16) G A Randerian Ltd.
17) G.K S Business Associates Pvt. Ltd.
18) Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage
19) Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd.
20) Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at Jawar Naka, Porbandar, 
Gujarat, 360 575, India)
21) Indian Aquatic Products
22) Innovative Foods Limited
23) Interseas
24) K R M Marine Exports Ltd.
25) K V Marine Exports
26) Kalyanee Marine
27) L. G Seafoods
28) Lewis Natural Foods Ltd.
29) Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd.
30) Lourde Exports
31) Sanchita Marine Products P Ltd
32) Silver Seafood
33) Sterling Foods
34) Veejay Impex
35) Veraval Marines & Chemicals P Ltd.
    We reviewed CBP data and confirmed that there were no entries of 
subject merchandise exported by any of these companies. Consequently, 
in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with our 
practice, we preliminarily intend to rescind our review for the 35 
companies listed above. See e.g., 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, 74 FR 10009, 10011 (Mar. 9, 2009), unchanged in 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191 (Sept. 15, 2009); see also Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Partial Rescission of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610 (Dec. 19, 2008).
    Additionally, the Department initiated separate administrative 
reviews for the following companies with the same name but different 
addresses: 1) Devi Fisheries Limited; 2) Premier Marine Products; 3) 
Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd.; 4) Satya Sea Foods Pvt. Limited; and 
5) Usha Sea Foods. Specifically, these are companies for which we 
initiated multiple administrative reviews because the petitioner and/or 
the respondent listed separate addresses for the same company in their 
review requests. See Initiation Notice, 74 FR at 15700-15704. The 
Department sent letters asking for clarification of the multiple 
addresses and same company names. We received

[[Page 12179]]

responses from the companies listed above verifying the correct 
addresses and indicating that the company names have been duplicated. 
Therefore, the Department is also preliminarily rescinding the review 
with respect to these duplicate company names (i.e., these companies 
will be included in the current administrative review only once).
    Finally, the Department also initiated separate administrative 
reviews for Calcutta Seafoods and Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd., two 
companies with the same address but different names. Subsequently, we 
received information from Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. demonstrating 
that Calcutta Seafoods no longer exists, and that this entity is 
currently doing business as Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, 
we are also preliminarily rescinding our review with respect to 
Calcutta Seafoods, in accordance with our practice. See AR2 Rescission 
Notice, 73 FR at 6127.

Notice of Intent To Revoke Order, in Part

    As noted above, on February 27, 2009, Devi requested revocation of 
the antidumping duty order with respect to its sales of subject 
merchandise, pursuant to 19 CFR 352.672(e). This request was 
accompanied by certifications, pursuant to 19 CFR 352.672(e)(1) that: 
1) Devi has sold the subject merchandise at not less than NV during the 
current POR and that it will not sell the merchandise at less than NV 
in the future; and 2) Devi sold subject merchandise to the United 
States in commercial quantities for a period of at least three 
consecutive years. Devi also agreed to immediate reinstatement of the 
antidumping duty order, as long as any exporter or producer is subject 
to the order, if the Department concludes that, subsequent to its 
revocation, it sold the subject merchandise at less than NV.
    Pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act, the Department ``may revoke, 
in whole or in part'' an antidumping duty order upon completion of a 
review under section 751(a) of the Act. In determining whether to 
revoke an antidumping duty order in part, the Department considers: 1) 
whether the company in question has sold subject merchandise at not 
less than NV for a period of at least three consecutive years; 2) 
whether the company has agreed in writing to its immediate 
reinstatement in the order, as long as any exporter or producer is 
subject to the order, if the Department concludes that the company, 
subsequent to revocation, sold the subject merchandise at less than NV; 
and 3) whether the continued application of the antidumping duty order 
is otherwise necessary to offset dumping. See 19 CFR 352.672(b)(2)(i); 
see also Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From Turkey; Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper 
Review and Determination To Revoke in Part, 72 FR 62630, 62631 (Nov. 6, 
2007). If, based on these criteria, the Department determines that the 
antidumping order as to that company is no longer warranted, pursuant 
to section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 352.672(b)(2)(ii), the 
Department will revoke the order as it applies to that company.
    We have preliminarily determined that the request from Devi meets 
all of the criteria under 19 CFR 352.672(e)(1). Our preliminary margin 
calculation confirms that Devi sold shrimp at not less than NV during 
the current review period. See the ``Preliminary Results of the 
Review'' section below. In addition, we have confirmed that Devi sold 
shrimp at not less than NV in the two previous administrative reviews 
in which it was individually examined (i.e., its dumping margins were 
de minimis). See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 33409, 33411 (July 13, 2009) (2007-2008 Final Results); 
see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results and 
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
40492, 40495 (July 15, 2008) (2006-2007 Final Results).
    Based on our examination of the sales data submitted by Devi, we 
preliminarily determine that it sold the subject merchandise in the 
United States in commercial quantities in each of the consecutive years 
cited by Devi to support its request for revocation. See the Memorandum 
to the File, from Henry Almond, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 
entitled, ``Analysis of Commercial Quantities for Devi Sea Foods 
Limited's Request for Revocation,'' dated March 8, 2010. Thus, we 
preliminarily find that Devi had  de minimis dumping margins for its 
last three administrative reviews and sold subject merchandise in 
commercial quantities in each of these years. Also, we preliminarily 
determine, pursuant to section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2), that the application of the antidumping duty order with 
respect to Devi is no longer warranted for the following reasons: 1) 
the company had a zero or de minimis margin for a period of at least 
three consecutive years; 2) the company has agreed to immediate 
reinstatement of the order if the Department finds that it has resumed 
making sales at less than NV; and, 3) the continued application of the 
order is not otherwise necessary to offset dumping. Therefore, we 
preliminarily determine that subject merchandise produced and exported 
by Devi qualifies for revocation from the antidumping duty order on 
frozen warmwater shrimp from India and that the order with respect to 
such merchandise should be revoked. If these preliminary findings are 
affirmed in our final results, we will revoke this order, in part, with 
respect to shrimp produced and exported by Devi and, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.222(f)(3), terminate the suspension of liquidation for any 
of the merchandise in question that is entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2009, and instruct 
CBP to release any cash deposits for such entries.

Duty Absorption

    On April 21, 2009, and May 7, 2009, the petitioner and the Domestic 
Processors, respectively, requested that the Department determine 
whether antidumping duties had been absorbed during the POR. Section 
751(a)(4) of the Act directs the Department, if requested, to determine 
during an administrative review initiated two or four years after the 
publication of the order, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed 
by a foreign producer or exporter, if the subject merchandise is sold 
in the United States through an affiliated importer. In the current 
review, only one of the three respondents, Devi, sold to the United 
States through an importer that is affiliated within the meaning of 
section 751 (a)(4) of the Act.
    Section 351.213(j)(1) of the Department's regulations provides that 
during any administrative review covering all or part of a period 
falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of 
the publication of an antidumping order, the Department will conduct a 
duty absorption review, if requested by a domestic interested party. 
The current administrative review was initiated four years after the 
publication of the Shrimp Order and the request was timely submitted to 
the Department by domestic interested parties. Accordingly, we are able 
to make a duty absorption determination in this segment of the 
proceeding.
    In determining whether the antidumping duties have been absorbed by 
the respondents during the POR, we examine the antidumping duties 
calculated in the administrative review in which the absorbtion inquiry 
is requested. See 19 CFR 351.213(j)(3). The Department presumes that 
the duties

[[Page 12180]]

will be absorbed for those sales that have been made at less than NV. 
This presumption can be rebutted with evidence (e.g., an enforceable 
agreement between the affiliated importer and unaffiliated purchaser) 
that the unaffiliated purchaser will pay the full duty ultimately 
assessed on the subject merchandise. See, e.g., Certain Stainless Steel 
Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings from Taiwan: Preliminary Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent to Rescind, 70 FR 
39735, 39737 (July 11, 2005).
    On September 24, 2009, we issued a letter to Devi requesting proof 
that the company's unaffiliated purchasers would ultimately pay the 
antidumping duties to be assessed on entries during the POR. On October 
9, 2009, Devi submitted a letter to the Department stating that it had 
zero antidumping duties in the previous two administrative reviews and 
it anticipated that the Department will determine it had a zero or de 
minimis antidumping duty margin during the current POR, and therefore, 
there will be no antidumping duties to absorb.
    Our preliminary margin calculation shows that Devi sold shrimp at 
not less than NV during the current POR. See the ``Preliminary Results 
of the Review'' section below. Therefore, consistent with the 
Department's finding in Large Newspaper Printing Presses and Components 
Thereof, Whether Assembled or Unassembled, From Japan: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Reviews, 65 FR 7492, 7494 (Feb. 15, 2000), we preliminarily 
find that there is no duty absorption applicable to Devi's U.S. sales 
because we have preliminarily determined that there is no dumping 
margin with respect to Devi's U.S. sales during the current 
administrative review.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of shrimp from India to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price/Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for 
Devi, Falcon, and the Liberty Group, we compared the EPs or CEPs of 
individual U.S. transactions, as applicable, to the weighted-average NV 
of the foreign like product in the appropriate corresponding calendar 
month where there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as 
discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Devi, Falcon, and the Liberty 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 non-broken shrimp to sales of non-broken shrimp 
made in the third country market within the contemporaneous window 
period, which extends from three months prior to the month of the first 
U.S. sale until two months after the month of the last U.S. sale. Where 
a respondent reported sales of broken shrimp in only its comparison 
market, we disregarded these sales because we found they were not 
comparable to products sold in the United States.
    Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to 
U.S. sales, according to section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we compared 
U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in 
the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we 
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics 
reported by Devi, Falcon, and the Liberty 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. Where there were no sales of identical or similar 
merchandise, we made product comparisons using constructed value (CV), 
as discussed in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed 
Value'' section below. See section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Constructed Export Price/Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Falcon and the Liberty Group, and for 
certain U.S. sales made by Devi, we used EP methodology, in accordance 
with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was 
sold by the producer/exporter outside of the United States directly to 
the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States prior to 
importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted based on 
the facts of record.
    For the remaining U.S. sales made by Devi, we calculated CEP in 
accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject 
merchandise was sold for the account of this company by its subsidiary 
in the United States to unaffiliated purchasers. We revised the data 
reported by Devi to take into account minor corrections found at 
verification.

A. Devi

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
also made deductions from the starting price for foreign inland freight 
expenses, export inspection agency (EIA) fees, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses, various foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, 
international freight expenses, terminal handling charges, marine 
insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance 
fees and merchandise processing fees), U.S. brokerage and handling 
expenses, U.S. warehousing expenses, and U.S. inland freight expenses, 
where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, we calculated CEP for 
those sales where the merchandise was first sold (or agreed to be sold) 
in the United States before or after the date of importation by or for 
the account of the producer or exporter, or by a seller affiliated with 
the producer or exporter, to a purchaser not affiliated with the 
producer or exporter. We based CEP on the packed delivered prices to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. Where appropriate, we 
made adjustments for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign 
inland freight expenses, EIA fees, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, various foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, international 
freight expenses, terminal handling charges, marine insurance expenses, 
U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise 
processing fees), U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. inland 
freight expenses (including both freight from port to warehouse and 
freight from warehouse to the customer), and U.S. warehousing expenses.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with economic 
activities occurring in the United States, including direct selling 
expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses, repacking

[[Page 12181]]

expenses, and other direct selling expenses), sales and marketing 
allowance expenditures, 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 Devi and its U.S. affiliate on their sales of 
the subject merchandise in the United States and the profit associated 
with those sales.

B. Falcon

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
also made deductions from the starting price for cold storage expenses, 
loading and unloading expenses, trailer hire expenses, foreign inland 
freight expenses, port charges, export survey charges, terminal 
handling charges, other miscellaneous shipment charges, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, international freight expenses, marine 
insurance expenses, U.S. customs duties (including harbor maintenance 
fees and merchandise processing fees), and U.S. brokerage and handling 
expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 
the Act.

C. Liberty Group

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
made deductions from the starting price for cold storage charges, 
inland freight expenses, other shipment and movement expenses, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, international freight expenses, 
terminal handling charges, U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage and 
handling expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    We determined that the aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product for each of the respondents was insufficient to 
permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 
For Devi, we used Canada as the comparison market because this was 
Devi's only viable comparison market during the POR. For Falcon and the 
Liberty Group, we selected Japan as the comparison market because, 
among other things, these companies' sales of foreign like product in 
Japan were the most similar to the subject merchandise. For further 
discussion, see the Third Country Market Memo. Therefore, as the basis 
for comparison market sales, we used sales to Canada for Devi, and 
sales to Japan for Falcon and the Liberty Group, in accordance with 
section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id; 
see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (Nov. 19, 1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order to 
determine whether the comparison market sales were at different stages 
in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the 
distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution), 
including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and 
the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\8\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

1. Devi

    Devi reported that it made sales through two channels of 
distribution in the United States (i.e., EP sales made directly to 
unaffiliated customers and CEP sales via an affiliated reseller); 
however, it stated that the selling activities it performed and the 
relative level of intensity of each selling activity did not vary by 
channel of distribution. Devi reported performing the following selling 
functions for its U.S. sales: sales planning, personnel training, sales 
promotion, packing, inventory maintenance in India, handling of sales 
inquiries, order processing, freight and delivery services (including 
pre-shipment inspection, foreign transportation, and export customs 
clearance), extension of credit to U.S. customers, providing discounts 
and rebates, and providing post-sale warranties and guarantees. These 
selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling function 
categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and 
delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and, 4) warranty 
and technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling function 
categories, we find that Devi performed sales and marketing, freight 
and delivery services, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and

[[Page 12182]]

warranty and technical support for all U.S. sales. Because Devi's 
selling activities did not vary by distribution channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to Canada, Devi reported that it made sales through a 
single channel of distribution (i.e., sales made directly to 
unaffiliated customers) and that all selling functions were performed 
at the same levels of intensity as in the U.S. market. We examined the 
selling activities performed for third country sales and found that 
Devi performed the following selling functions: sales planning, 
personnel training, sales promotion, packing, inventory maintenance in 
India, handling of sales inquiries, order processing, freight and 
delivery services (including pre-shipment inspection and foreign 
transportation), extension of credit to Canadian customers, and 
providing post-sale warranties and guarantees. Accordingly, based on 
these selling functions noted above, we find that Devi performed sales 
and marketing, freight and delivery services, inventory maintenance and 
warehousing, and warranty and technical services for third country 
sales. Because all third country sales are made through a single 
distribution channel and the selling activities to Devi's customers did 
not vary within this channel, we preliminarily determine that there is 
one LOT in the third country market for Devi.
    Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the third country market LOT 
and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and third 
country market customers do not differ, as Devi performed the same 
selling functions at the same relative level of intensity in both 
markets. Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and third 
country markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a 
result, no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted.

2. Falcon

    Falcon reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to trading 
companies and distributors. We examined the selling activities 
performed for U.S. sales and found that Falcon performed the following 
selling functions: customer contact and price negotiation; order 
processing; arranging for freight and the provision of customs 
clearance/brokerage services (in India and the United States); cold 
storage and inventory maintenance; quality-assurance-related 
activities; and banking-related activities. These selling activities 
can be generally grouped into four selling function categories for 
analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and delivery; 3) inventory 
maintenance and warehousing; and 4) warranty and technical support. 
Accordingly, based on the selling function categories, we find that 
Falcon performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, 
and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all 
sales in the United States are made through a single distribution 
channel (i.e., direct sales to unaffiliated customers) and the selling 
activities to Falcon's customers did not vary within this channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the third country market, Falcon reported that it 
made sales to trading companies and that all selling functions were 
performed at the same levels of intensity as in the U.S. market. We 
examined the selling activities performed for third country sales, and 
found that Falcon performed the following selling functions: customer 
contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight 
and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (in India); 
cold storage and inventory maintenance; quality-assurance-related 
activities; and banking-related activities. Accordingly, based on these 
selling functions noted above, we find that Falcon performed sales and 
marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing for all third country sales. Because all third country 
sales are made through a single distribution channel and the selling 
activities to Falcon's customers did not vary within this channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third country 
market for Falcon.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the third country market LOT and 
found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and third country 
market customers do not differ, as Falcon performed the same selling 
functions at the same relative level of intensity in both markets. 
Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and third country 
markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no 
LOT adjustment is warranted.

3. Liberty Group

    The Liberty Group reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market 
to trading companies. We examined the selling activities performed for 
this channel and found that the Liberty Group performed the following 
selling functions: customer contact and price negotiation; order 
processing; arranging for freight and the provision of customs 
clearance/ brokerage services; cold storage and inventory maintenance; 
quality assurance related activities; and banking-related activities. 
These selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling 
function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight 
and delivery; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and 4) warranty 
and technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling function 
categories noted above, we find that the Liberty Group performed sales 
and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance 
and warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all U.S. sales are made through 
a single distribution channel and the selling activities to the Liberty 
Group's customers did not vary within this channel, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the third country market, the Liberty Group 
reported that it made sales to trading companies. We examined the 
selling activities performed for third country sales, and found that 
the Liberty Group performed the following selling functions: customer 
contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight 
and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services; cold storage 
and inventory maintenance; quality assurance related activities; and 
banking-related activities. Accordingly, based on these selling 
functions noted above, we find that the Liberty Group performed sales 
and marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance 
and warehousing for third country sales. Because all third country 
sales are made through a single distribution channel and the selling 
activities to the Liberty Group's customers did not vary within this 
channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third 
country market for the Liberty Group.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the third country market LOT and 
found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and third country 
market customers do not differ. Therefore, we determined that sales to 
the U.S. and third country markets during the POR were made at the same 
LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    We found that Devi, Falcon, and the Liberty Group made sales in the 
same comparison markets below the COP in the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding, as of the date of initiation of this 
review, in which each respondent was examined, and such sales were 
disregarded. See 2006-2007 Final Results, 73 FR at 40495 (finding

[[Page 12183]]

that Devi and Falcon made below-cost sales); see also Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 52055, 52058 (Sept. 12, 
2007) (finding that the Liberty Group made below-cost sales). Thus, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Devi, Falcon, and the 
Liberty 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 third country selling expenses).
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent 
in its most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, 
except for the following instances:

a. Devi:

i. We adjusted Devi's reported G&A expenses to include a gain on the 
sale of assets and income from sales of shrimp waste; and
ii. Devi reported a negative financial expense rate. In accordance with 
the Department's practice, we have adjusted Devi's reported financial 
expense rate to set it to zero. See Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Turkey; Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial 
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 20911, 
20913 (May 6, 2009), unchanged in Certain Steel Concrete Reinforcing 
Bars From Turkey; Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 45611 (Sept. 3, 2009).
    For further discussion of these adjustments, see the memorandum 
from Frederick W. Mines, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, 
Office of Accounting, entitled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed 
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Devi Sea 
Foods Limited,'' dated March 8, 2010.

b. Liberty Group:

    Because the Liberty Group failed to report cost data for one 
product, the Department has preliminary determined to apply facts 
available for this COP, pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the 
Act. As partial facts available, we have used the cost of the next most 
similar product produced during the POR as a surrogate for the missing 
COP information. See Memorandum to the File, from Holly Phelps, 
Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ``Calculation 
Adjustments for Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited, Kader Exports 
Private Limited, Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, 
Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited, Liberty Oil Mills Ltd., Premier 
Marine Products, and Universal Cold Storage (Collectively, ``the 
Liberty Group'') for the Preliminary Results in the 2008-2009 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,'' 
dated March 8, 2010 (Liberty Group Sales Calculation Memo).

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

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

3. Results of the COP Test

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

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

1. Devi

    For Devi, we calculated NV based on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in Canada. We made adjustments to the starting 
price, where appropriate, for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(c). We also made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, various foreign 
miscellaneous shipment charges and international freight expenses 
(including terminal handling charges) under section 773(a)(6)(B) of the 
Act.
    For comparisons to EP sales, we made adjustments under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 
circumstances of sale for direct selling expenses (including bank 
charges, Export Credit Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) fees, EIA fees, 
imputed credit expenses, and other direct selling expenses), and 
commissions. Because commissions were paid only in the comparison 
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. See 19 CFR 
351.410(e).
    For comparisons to CEP sales, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we deducted from NV 
direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses and other direct 
selling expenses), commissions, sales and marketing allowance 
expenditures, and indirect

[[Page 12184]]

selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs and other indirect 
selling expenses). Because commissions were paid only in the comparison 
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. See 19 CFR 
351.410(e).
    For all price-to-price comparisons, we made adjustments for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted third 
country packing costs and added U.S. packing costs in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

2. Falcon

    We based NV for Falcon on prices to unaffiliated customers in 
Japan. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price 
for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made 
deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for cold storage 
expenses, loading and unloading expenses, trailer hire expenses, 
foreign inland freight expenses, port charges, export survey charges, 
terminal and handling charges, foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, 
foreign brokerage and handling expenses, and international freight 
expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for 
commissions, imputed credit expenses, bank fees, EIA fees, ECGC 
premiums, outside inspection/lab expenses, letter of credit amendment 
charges, and other miscellaneous selling expenses. For Falcon's U.S. 
sales for which it had not yet received payment, we recalculated U.S. 
credit expenses using the date February 25, 2010, as the date of 
payment because this was the date of Falcon's last submission on the 
record that contained payment date information. We also recalculated 
Falcon's third country and U.S. credit expenses to use the simple 
average of the POR U.S. Federal Reserve interest rates, as well as to 
base the expense on gross unit price net of discounts. For further 
discussion, see the Memorandum to the File, from Blaine Wiltse, 
Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ``Calculation 
Adjustments for Falcon Marine Exports Limited for the Preliminary 
Results,'' dated March 8, 2010. Finally, where commissions were granted 
in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we made a downward 
adjustment to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of commission paid in 
the U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect selling expenses 
(including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the comparison market. 
See 19 CFR 351.410(e). If commissions were granted in the comparison 
market but not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV 
following the same methodology. Id.
    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We also deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

3. Liberty Group

    We based NV for the Liberty Group on prices to unaffiliated 
customers in Japan. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the 
starting price for inland freight expenses from the plant to the port, 
other shipment and movement expenses, clearing and forwarding agency 
charges, shipment-related expenses, cold storage charges, international 
freight expenses, and terminal handling charges, under section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for 
commissions, credit expenses, bank fees, EIA inspection fees, and 
outside inspection/lab expenses. We recalculated the Liberty Group's 
third country and U.S. credit expenses to use the simple average of the 
POR U.S. Federal Reserve interest rates. For further discussion, see 
the Liberty Group Sales Calculation Memo. Finally, where commissions 
were granted in the U.S. market but not in the comparison market, we 
made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of 
commission paid in the U.S. market; or 2) the amount of indirect 
selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the 
comparison market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). If commissions were granted 
in the comparison market but