Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 8338-8345 [2011-3246]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8338
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Notices
(please include any sales or contracts
that were won or retained as a result of
your participation in the programs).
(3) How much of your annual sales/
exports to Europe, Switzerland, or other
parts of the world are dependent on selfcertification to the U.S.-EU or U.S.Swiss Safe Harbor programs?
(4) Does your company currently have
a contract that is dependent on selfcertification to the U.S.-EU or U.S.Swiss Safe Harbor programs? If so, what
is the value of that contract(s)?
(5) What do the U.S.-EU and U.S.Swiss Safe Harbor programs mean to
your company in terms of business
opportunities in Europe?
(6) Tell us what you think about the
U.S.-EU and U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor
programs?
II. Method of Collection
The information will be collected via
an electronic form on the Safe Harbor
Web site (https://www.export.gov/
safeharbor).
III. Data
OMB Control Number: None.
Form Number(s): None.
Type of Review: Regular submission
(new information collection).
Affected Public: Business or other forprofit organizations.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
2,300.
Estimated Time per Response: 20
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 767.
Estimated Total Annual Cost to
Public: $500.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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 will 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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Feb 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
Dated: February 8, 2011.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief
Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2011–3173 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–893]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the People’s Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Preliminary
Partial Rescission of Fifth
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
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 the People’s Republic of China
(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period of review
(‘‘POR’’) of February 1, 2009, through
January 31, 2010. As discussed below,
the Department preliminarily
determines that the respondent in this
review did not make sales in the United
States at prices below normal value
(‘‘NV’’) during the POR.
DATES: Effective Date: February 14,
2011.
AGENCY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202)
482–2593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department received timely
requests from members of the Ad Hoc
Shrimp Trade Action Committee
(‘‘Petitioner’’) and the American Shrimp
Processors Association and the
Louisiana Shrimp Association
(collectively, ‘‘domestic parties’’), in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b),
during the anniversary month of
February, for administrative reviews of
the antidumping duty order on shrimp
from the PRC. On April 9, 2010, the
Department initiated an administrative
review of 92 producers/exporters of
subject merchandise from the PRC. See
Notice of Initiation of Administrative
Reviews and Requests for Revocation in
Part of the Antidumping Duty Orders on
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
and the People’s Republic of China, 75
FR 18154 (April 9, 2010) (‘‘Initiation’’).
However, after accounting for duplicate
names and additional trade names
associated with certain exporters, the
number of companies upon which we
initiated was actually 88.1
Between April 15, 2010, and April 27,
2010, the following companies
submitted ‘‘no shipment certifications’’ 2:
Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd.,
Allied Pacific Aquatic Products
(Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang Allied
Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd., Allied
Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd., and King Royal
Investments Ltd.; 3 Shantou Yelin
Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. (doing
business as (‘‘d.b.a.’’) Shantou Yelin
Quick-Freeze Marine Products Co.,
Ltd.); Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co.,
Ltd.; Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd.;
and Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick
Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.
On July 6, 2010, Petitioner withdrew
its request for an administrative review
of Allied Pacific Aquatic Products
(Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. and Allied Pacific
Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd. Petitioner was
the only party to request a review of
these companies. Accordingly, on July
20, 2010, the Department published a
partial rescission with respect to these
two companies. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s
Republic of China: Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 75 FR 42070 (July 20, 2010)
(‘‘Partial Rescission’’).
Respondent Selection
On May 17, 2010, in accordance with
section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), the
Department selected Hilltop
International (‘‘Hilltop’’) for individual
examination in this review, since it was
the largest exporter by volume during
the POR, based on U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data of U.S.
imports. See Memorandum to James
Doyle, Director, Office 9, from Kabir
Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9,
‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative
1 The following companies were duplicated:
Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. and/or Fuqing
Yihua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Regal Marine
Resources Co., Ltd., Shantou Longsheng Aquatic
Product, and Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine
Resources.
2 Companies have the opportunity to submit
statements certifying that they did not ship the
subject merchandise to the United States during the
POR.
3 The Department did not initiate upon Zhanjiang
Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific
(H.K.) Co., Ltd., and King Royal Investments Ltd.
because no parties requested a review of them for
this POR.
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Notices
Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the People’s Republic of
China: Selection of Respondents for
Individual Review,’’ dated May 17,
2010.
Questionnaires
On May 18, 2010, the Department
issued its initial non-market economy
(‘‘NME’’) antidumping duty
questionnaire to Hilltop, and issued
supplemental questionnaires to Hilltop
between July 2010 and November 2010.
Hilltop responded to the Department’s
initial and subsequent supplemental
questionnaires between June 2010 and
November 2010.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate
Values
On July 20, 2010, the Department sent
interested parties a letter requesting
comments on the surrogate country and
information pertaining to the valuation
of factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’). On
August 31, 2010, the Department
received comments from Hilltop and
Petitioner regarding selection of a
surrogate country. On September 10,
2010, the Department received
comments from Hilltop, domestic
parties and Petitioner regarding
selection of surrogate country and
valuation of FOPs. On September 20,
2010, the Department received rebuttal
comments from Hilltop regarding
surrogate value submissions.
Case Schedule
On September 17, 2010, in accordance
with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we
extended the time period for issuing the
preliminary results by 120 days, until
February 28, 2011. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s
Republic of China: Extension of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
56988 (September 17, 2010).
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Scope of the Order
The scope of the 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,4
deveined or not deveined, cooked or
raw, or otherwise processed in frozen
form.
The frozen warmwater shrimp and
prawn products included in the scope of
the order, regardless of definitions in
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTS’’), are products
which are processed from warmwater
4 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which
includes the telson and the uropods.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Feb 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
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, white-leg 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 the 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 the order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1)
Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS
subheading 1605.20.1020); (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 (HTS
subheadings 0306.23.0020 and
0306.23.0040); (4) shrimp and prawns in
prepared meals (HTS subheading
1605.20.0510); (5) dried shrimp and
prawns; (6) Lee Kum Kee’s shrimp
sauce; (7) canned warmwater shrimp
and prawns (HTS subheading
1605.20.1040); (8) certain dusted
shrimp; and (9) 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 individually quick frozen (‘‘IQF’’)
freezing immediately after application
of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is
a shrimp-based product that, when
dusted in accordance with the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8339
definition of dusting above, is coated
with a wet viscous layer containing egg
and/or milk, and par-fried.
The products covered by the order are
currently classified under the following
HTS subheadings: 0306.13.0003,
0306.13.0006, 0306.13.0009,
0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015,
0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021,
0306.13.0024, 0306.13.0027,
0306.13.0040, 1605.20.1010 and
1605.20.1030. These HTS subheadings
are provided for convenience and for
customs purposes only and are not
dispositive, but rather the written
description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Affiliation/Single Entity
Based on the evidence on the record
in this administrative review, including
information found in Hilltop’s
questionnaire responses, the
Department preliminarily finds
affiliation between Hilltop and
Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick
Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. and Fuqing
Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd., producers
of subject merchandise, pursuant to
section 771(33)(F) of the Act. Further,
we preliminarily find Hilltop affiliated
with Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean
Beauty Corporation, and Ever Hope
International Co., Ltd., Taiwanese
resellers of subject merchandise,
pursuant to 771(33)(A) and (F) of the
Act. Lastly, we preliminarily find
affiliation between Hilltop and Ocean
Duke Corporation, a U.S. importer of
subject merchandise, pursuant to
sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.
Based on the evidence presented in
Hilltop’s questionnaire responses, we
preliminarily find that Hilltop, Yelin
Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty
Corporation, and Ever Hope
International Co., Ltd., should be treated
as a single entity for the purposes of this
administrative review. This finding is
based on our determination that Yelin
Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty
Corporation, and Ever Hope
International Co., Ltd., are involved in
the export of subject merchandise sold
by Hilltop and that a significant
potential for manipulation of price or
production exists between these
entities.5 For a detailed discussion of
5 While Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty
Corporation, and Ever Hope International Co., Ltd.,
are not producers of subject merchandise, we note
that where companies are affiliated, and there exists
a significant potential for manipulation of prices
and/or export decisions, the Department has found
it appropriate to treat those companies as a single
entity. The Court of International Trade upheld the
Department’s decision to include export decisions
in its analysis of whether there was a significant
potential for manipulation. See Hontex Enterprises,
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
Continued
14FEN1
8340
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Notices
this issue, see Memorandum to the File,
through Catherine Bertrand, Program
Manager, Office 9, from Kabir
Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9,
‘‘Preliminary Determination of
Affiliation/Single Entity Treatment of
Hilltop International, Yelin Enterprise
Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty Corporation and
Ever Hope International Co., Ltd.,’’
issued concurrently with this notice.
Preliminary Partial Rescission of
Review
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
As discussed in the Background
section above, several companies filed
no shipment certifications indicating
that they did not export subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. The Department’s practice
concerning ‘‘no-shipment’’ respondents
has been to rescind the administrative
review if the respondent certifies that it
had no shipments and the Department
has confirmed through its examination
of data from CBP that there were no
shipments of subject merchandise
during the POR. See Antidumping
Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR
27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997).
On May 11, 2010, the Department sent
an inquiry to CBP to determine whether
CBP entry data is consistent with the
statements of Allied Pacific Aquatic
Products Zhanjiang Co. Ltd. and Allied
Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd. See
Memorandum to the File from Kabir
Archuletta, Analyst, Office 9, regarding
‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Inquiries’’ dated December 15, 2010
(‘‘Customs Inquiries’’). As stated above,
Petitioner withdrew its request for an
administrative review of Allied Pacific
Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.
and Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co.,
Ltd., and on July 20, 2010, the
Department published in the Federal
Register a partial rescission notice with
respect to these two companies. See
Partial Rescission.
On May 17, 2010, the Department sent
an inquiry to CBP to confirm the claims
made by Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.
(d.b.a. Shantou Yelin Quick-Freeze
Marine Products Co., Ltd.); Yangjiang
City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood
Co., Ltd.; Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food
Co., Ltd.; and Fuqing Minhua Trading
Co., Ltd. See Customs Inquiries. Because
CBP did not respond to the
Department’s inquiry 6 and no party
Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1343
(CIT 2003). In this case, not only are Yelin
Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty Corporation, and
Ever Hope International Co., Ltd. exporters of
subject merchandise, but they are the sole
intermediaries for all transactions of subject
merchandise between Hilltop and its U.S. affiliate.
6 CBP only responds to the Department’s inquiry
when there are records of shipments from the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Feb 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
submitted comments, we are
preliminarily rescinding the review
with respect to Shantou Yelin Frozen
Seafood Co., Ltd. (d.b.a. Shantou Yelin
Quick-Freeze Marine Products Co.,
Ltd.); Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick
Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Fuqing Yihua
Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.; and Fuqing
Minhua Trading Co., Ltd. See, e.g.,
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of
Preliminary Results and Partial
Rescission of the Third Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR
53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007),
unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission, 73 FR 15479, 15480 (March
24, 2008).
NME Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving the PRC, the PRC
has been treated as an NME country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See Brake
Rotors From the People’s Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of the 2004/2005
Administrative Review and Notice of
Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14,
2006). None of the parties to this
proceeding has contested such
treatment. Accordingly, we calculated
NV in accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Separate Rates
A designation of a country as an NME
remains in effect until it is revoked by
the Department. See section 771(18)(C)
of the Act. Accordingly, there is a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the PRC are subject to
government control and, thus, should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate.
See Notice of Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and
Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In
Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From
the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR
53079 (September 8, 2006); Final
company in question. See Certain Hot-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon Quality Steel Flat Products From
Brazil: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 65453, 65454
(October 25, 2010); Certain Circular Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Notice of
Intent To Rescind Administrative Review, 74 FR
3559, 3560 (January 21, 2009); and Certain In–Shell
Raw Pistachios From Iran: Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
9292, 9293 (February 20, 2008).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative
Determination of Critical
Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof From the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
22, 2006).
In the Initiation, the Department
notified parties of the application
process by which exporters and
producers may obtain separate rate
status in NME proceedings. See
Initiation. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of the
merchandise subject to review in NME
countries a single rate unless an
exporter can affirmatively demonstrate
an absence of government control, both
in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto),
with respect to exports. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently
independent to be entitled to a separate,
company-specific rate, the Department
analyzes each exporting entity in an
NME country under the test established
in Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the
People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588
(May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of
Final Determination of Sales at Less
Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From
the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR
22585 (May 2, 1994). However, if the
Department determines that a company
is wholly foreign-owned or located in a
market economy, then a separate rate
analysis is not necessary to determine
whether it is independent from
government control. See, e.g., Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax
Candles From the People’s Republic of
China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September
13, 2007).
In this administrative review,
Zhanjiang Regal (‘‘Regal’’) is the only
company that submitted a separate rate
certification. See Regal’s Separate Rate
Certification dated May 10, 2010.
Additionally, the Department received
completed responses to the Section A
portion of the NME antidumping
questionnaire from Hilltop, which
contained information pertaining to the
company’s eligibility for a separate rate.
See Hilltop’s Section A response dated
June 15, 2010. All other companies
upon which the Department initiated an
administrative review that have not
been rescinded did not submit either a
separate rate application or certification.
Therefore, we have determined it
appropriate to consider those companies
that did not demonstrate their eligibility
for separate rate status as part of the
PRC-wide entity.
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Notices
Separate Rate Recipients
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Wholly Foreign-Owned
Hilltop has reported that it is a Hong
Kong based exporter of subject
merchandise. See Hilltop’s Section A
response dated June 15, 2010, at 1. In its
separate rate submission, Regal, the sole
applicant for separate rate status in this
administrative review, certified that it
was 100 percent owned by foreign
entity/entities located in Singapore and
Hong Kong. Therefore, there is no PRC
ownership of Hilltop or Regal, and
because the Department has no evidence
indicating that either of these
companies are under the control of the
PRC, a separate rate analysis is not
necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.7
Consequently, we preliminarily
determine that Hilltop and Regal have
met the criteria for a separate rate.
In the Initiation, we instructed all
companies requesting separate rate
status in this administrative review to
submit, as appropriate, either a separate
rate status application or certification.
See Initiation. As discussed above, the
Department initiated this administrative
review with respect to 88 companies.
On July 20, 2010, the Department
published a partial rescission of this
antidumping duty order with respect to
Allied Pacific Aquatic Products
Zhanjiang Co. Ltd. and Allied Pacific
Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd. See Partial
Rescission. Additionally, we are
preliminarily rescinding this review
with respect to four companies 8
because we have preliminarily
determined that they had no shipments
of subject merchandise during the POR.
Thus, including Hilltop and Regal, 82
companies remain subject to this
review. While Hilltop and Regal
provided documentation supporting
their eligibility for a separate rate, the
remaining companies under active
review have not demonstrated their
eligibility for a separate rate. Therefore,
the Department preliminarily
7 See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of
the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of
the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001),
unchanged in Brake Rotors From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and
Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16,
2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From
the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104
(December 20, 1999).
8 Those companies are: Shantou Yelin Frozen
Seafood Co., Ltd., d.b.a. Shantou Yelin QuickFreeze Marine Products Co., Ltd.; Yangjiang City
Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Fuqing
Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.; and Fuqing Minhua
Trading Co., Ltd.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Feb 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
determines that there were exports of
merchandise under review from 80 PRC
exporters that did not demonstrate their
eligibility for separate rate status.9 As a
result, the Department is treating these
80 PRC exporters as part of the PRCwide entity, subject to the PRC-wide
rate.
Rate for Non-Selected Companies
In accordance with section
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department
employed a limited examination
methodology, as it did not have the
resources to examine all companies for
which a review request was made. As
stated above, the Department selected
Hilltop as the mandatory respondent in
this review. In addition to the
mandatory respondent, only Regal
submitted timely information as
requested by the Department and
9 Those companies are: Asian Seafoods
(Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.; Beautiful Lighting Co., Ltd.;
Beihai Qinguo Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.; Capital
Prospect; Century Distribution Systems (Shenz);
Dafu Foods Industry; Daishan Baofa Aquatic
Product Co.; Elaite Group Co., Ltd.; Everflow Ind.
Supply; Flags Wins Trading Co., Ltd.; Fuchang
Aquatic Products; Fujian Haiding Global Foods;
Fujian Provincial Meihua Aquat.; Fuqing Maowang
Seafood Development; Fuqing Xuhu Aquatic Food
Trdg.; Gallant Ocean (Nanhai), Ltd.; Geelong Sales;
Guangdong Jiahuang Foods; Guangdong Jinhang
Foods Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Wanya Foods Fty. Co.,
Ltd.; Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd.; Hainan Hailisheng
Food Co., Ltd.; Hainan Seaberry Seafoods; Hainan
Siyuan Foods Co., Ltd.; Hainan Zhongyu Seafood
Co., Ltd.; Huasheng Aquatic Pro. Factory; Huian
County Import & Export and Trading Co.;
Innovative Aluminum; Intecs Service; Jet Power
International Ltd.; JetStar Co.; Leizhou Yunyuan
Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Liang Hsin Lighting
Shenzhen; Maoming Changxing Foods; Maoming
Jiahui Foods Co., Ltd.; New Peak Service; North
Seafood Group Co.; Panasonic Mfg. Xiamen Co.;
Phoenix Intl.; Rizhao Smart Foods; Ruian Huasheng
Aquatic Products Fac.; Savvy Seafood Inc.; Sea
Trade International Inc.; Second Aquatic Food;
Shandong Huashijia Foods; Shanghai Apa
International Trading; Shanghai Smiling Food Co.,
Ltd.; Shantou Jin Cheng Food Co.; Shantou Longfen
Foodstuff Co.; Shantou Longsheng Aquatic Product
Foodstuff Co., Ltd.; Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff
Co., Ltd. and/or Shantou Red Garden Food
Processing Co., Ltd.; Shantou Wanya Foods Fty.
Co., Ltd. (Branch Factory); Shantou Xinwanya
Aquatic Product Ltd.; Shantou Yue Xiang
Commercial Trading Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Pingyue
Trading Co., Ltd.; SLK Hardware; Sysgration; Thai
Royal Frozen Food Zhanjiang Co., Ltd.; Tianjin
Dongjiang Food Co., Ltd.; Tongwei Hainan Aquatic
Products Co., Ltd.; Top One Intl.; Wenling Xingdi
Aquatic Product; Yangcheng Seahorse Foods;
Yangjiang Wanshida Seafood Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiang
Bo Bo Go Ocean; Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic
Products; Zhanjiang Fuchang Aquatic Product
Freezing Plant; Zhanjiang Go-harvest Aquatic
Products Co., Ltd.; Zhanjiang Haizhou Aquatic
Product; Zhanjiang Huibaoye Trading Co., Ltd.;
Zhanjiang Jebshin Seafood; Zhanjiang Jinguo
Marine Foods Company Limited; Zhanjiang
Longwei Aquatic Product; Zhejiang Daishan Baofa
Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Industrial
Group Co., Ltd.; Zhj Jinguo Marine Foods;
Zhoushan Corp. for Intl. Economic and Technical
Cooperation; Zhoushan Haohai Aquatic Products;
Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd.; and
Zhoushan Qiangren Imp. & Exp.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8341
remains subject to review as a
cooperative separate rate respondent.
We note that the statute and the
Department’s regulations do not directly
address the establishment of a rate to be
applied to individual companies not
selected for examination where the
Department limited its examination in
an administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The
Department’s practice in cases involving
limited selection based on exporters
accounting for the largest volumes of
trade has been to look to section
735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides
instructions for calculating the allothers rate in an investigation, for
guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the
Act instructs that we are not to calculate
an all-others rate using any zero or de
minimis margins or any margins based
entirely on facts available. Section
735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides
that, where all margins are zero rates, de
minimis rates, or rates based entirely on
facts available, we may use ‘‘any
reasonable method’’ for assigning the
rate to non-selected respondents. In this
instance, we have calculated a de
minimis rate for the sole mandatory
respondent, Hilltop.
In exercising this discretion to
determine a non-examined rate, the
Department considers relevant the fact
that section 735(c)(5) of the Act: (a) Is
explicitly applicable to the
determination of an all-others rate in an
investigation; and (b) articulates a
preference that the Department avoid
zero, de minimis rates or rates based
entirely on facts available when it
determines the all others rate. The
statute’s statement that averaging of
zero/de minimis margins and margins
based entirely on facts available may be
a reasonable method, and the Statement
of Administrative Action’s (‘‘SAA’’)
indication that such averaging may be
the expected method, should be read in
the context of an investigation. See SAA
accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103–316
at 872 (1994), reprinted in 1994
U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4200. First, if there
are only zero or de minimis margins
determined in the investigation (and
there is no other entity to which a facts
available margin has been applied), the
investigation would terminate and no
order would be issued. Thus, the
provision necessarily only applies to
circumstances in which there are either
both zero/de minimis and total facts
available margins, or only total facts
available margins. Second, when such
rates are the only rates determined in an
investigation, there is little information
on which to rely to determine an
appropriate all-others rate. In this
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
8342
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
context, therefore, the SAA’s stated
expected method is reasonable: The
zero/de minimis and facts available
margins may be the only or best data the
Department has available to apply to
non-selected companies.
We note that the Department has
sought other reasonable means to assign
separate-rate margins to non-reviewed
companies in instances with calculated
zero rates, de minimis rates, or rates
based entirely on facts available for the
mandatory respondents. See Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 74 FR 47191, 47194 (September
15, 2009) (‘‘Vietnam Shrimp AR3
Final’’).
In Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final, the
Department assigned to those separate
rate companies with no history of an
individually calculated rate the margin
calculated for cooperative separate rate
respondents in the underlying
investigation. However, for those
separate rate respondents that had
received a calculated rate in a prior
segment, concurrent with or more recent
than the calculated rate in the
underlying investigation, the
Department assigned that calculated rate
as the company’s separate rate in the
review at hand.
Thus, we find that a reasonable
method in the instant review is to assign
to the non-reviewed company, Regal, its
most recent calculated rate. Pursuant to
this method, we are preliminarily
assigning a rate of zero to Regal, its
calculated rate in the previous
administrative review. See
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s
Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 49460,
49463 (August 13, 2010) (‘‘PRC Shrimp
AR4’’). In assigning this separate rate,
the Department did not impute the
actions of any other companies to the
behavior of the non-individually
examined company, but based this
determination on record evidence that
may be deemed reasonably reflective of
the potential dumping margin for the
non-individually examined company,
Regal, in this administrative review.
PRC-Wide Entity
We have preliminarily determined
that 80 companies did not demonstrate
their eligibility for a separate rate and
are properly considered part of the PRCwide entity. As explained above in the
Separate Rates section, all companies
within the PRC are considered to be
subject to government control unless
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Feb 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
they are able to demonstrate an absence
of government control with respect to
their export activities. Such companies
are thus assigned a single antidumping
duty rate distinct from the separate
rate(s) determined for companies that
are found to be independent of
government control with respect to their
export activities. We consider the
influence that the government has been
found to have over the economy to
warrant determining a rate for the entity
that is distinct from the rates found for
companies that have provided sufficient
evidence to establish that they operate
freely with respect to their export
activities. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined
Paper Products From the People’s
Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53080
(September 8, 2006). Therefore, we are
assigning as the entity’s current rate
112.81 percent, the only rate ever
determined for the PRC-wide entity in
this proceeding.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates
imports from an NME country, section
773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV,
in most circumstances, on the NME
producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate
market economy country or countries
considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section
773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the
FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to
the extent possible, the prices or costs
of FOPs in one or more market economy
countries that are at a level of economic
development comparable to that of the
NME country and significant producers
of comparable merchandise. The
sources of the surrogate factor values are
discussed under the Normal Value
section below and in the Memorandum
to the File through Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir
Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9,
‘‘Fifth Administrative Review of Certain
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
People’s Republic of China: Surrogate
Factor Valuations for the Preliminary
Results,’’ dated concurrently with this
notice (‘‘Surrogate Value Memo’’).
As discussed in the NME Country
Status section, above, the Department
considers the PRC to be an NME
country. The Department determined
that India, Indonesia, the Philippines,
Thailand, Ukraine and Peru are
countries comparable to the PRC in
terms of economic development. See the
Department’s letter to all interested
parties, dated July 20, 2010. Moreover,
it is the Department’s practice to select
an appropriate surrogate country based
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
on the availability and reliability of data
from these countries. See Department
Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market
Economy Surrogate Country Selection
Process, dated March 1, 2004. The
Department finds India to be a reliable
source for surrogate values because
India is at a comparable level of
economic development pursuant to
773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant
producer of comparable merchandise,
and has publicly available and reliable
data. Furthermore, the Department notes
that India has been the primary
surrogate country in past segments. As
noted above, Hilltop and domestic
parties submitted surrogate value data
for FOPs for India, and Petitioner
submitted surrogate value data for
certain FOPs for Thailand on September
10, 2010. Given the above facts, the
Department has selected India as the
primary surrogate country for this
review. See Surrogate Value Memo.
U.S. Price
Constructed Export Price
For Hilltop’s sales, we based U.S.
price on constructed export price
(‘‘CEP’’) in accordance with section
772(b) of the Act, because sales were
made on behalf of Hilltop by its U.S.
affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the
United States. For these sales, we based
CEP on prices to the first unaffiliated
purchaser in the United States. Where
appropriate, we made deductions from
the starting price (gross unit price) for
foreign movement expenses,
international movement expenses, U.S.
movement expenses, and appropriate
selling expenses, in accordance with
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1)
of the Act, we also deducted those
selling expenses associated with
economic activities occurring in the
United States. We deducted, where
appropriate, commissions, inventory
carrying costs, credit expenses, and
indirect selling expenses. Where foreign
movement expenses, international
movement expenses, or U.S. movement
expenses were provided by Chinese
service providers or paid for in Chinese
renminbi, we valued these services
using surrogate values. See Surrogate
Value Memo for details regarding the
surrogate values for movement
expenses. For those expenses that were
provided by a market-economy provider
and paid for in market-economy
currency, we used the reported expense.
Due to the proprietary nature of certain
adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed
description of all adjustments made to
U.S. price for Hilltop, see Surrogate
Value Memo.
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Notices
Normal Value
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act
provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP
methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME and the
information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market
prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a)
of the Act. The Department bases NV on
the FOPs because the presence of
government controls on various aspects
of NMEs renders price comparisons and
the calculation of production costs
invalid under the Department’s normal
methodologies.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of
the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP
data reported by the respondents for the
POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied
the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available
surrogate values (except as discussed
below).
In selecting the surrogate values, we
considered the quality, specificity, and
contemporaneity of the data. As
appropriate, we adjusted input prices by
including freight costs to make them
delivered prices. We added to each
Indian import surrogate value a
surrogate freight cost calculated from
the shorter of the reported distance from
the domestic supplier to the factory or
the distance from the nearest seaport to
the factory, where appropriate. See
Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d
1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Where we could not obtain publicly
available information contemporaneous
to the POR with which to value FOPs,
we adjusted the surrogate values, where
appropriate, using the Indian Wholesale
Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in the
International Monetary Fund’s
International Financial Statistics. See
Surrogate Value Memo.
The Department used Indian import
statistics from Global Trade Atlas to
value the raw material and packing
material inputs that Hilltop used to
produce subject merchandise during the
POR, except where listed below.
To value shrimp larvae, the
Department used the 2008–2009 annual
report of Sharat Industries Ltd. We find
this to be the best source on the record
because it is contemporaneous with the
POR and is based on actual market
prices. See Surrogate Value Memo.
We valued electricity using the
updated electricity price data for small,
medium, and large industries, as
published by the Central Electricity
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Feb 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
Authority, an administrative body of the
Government of India, in its publication
titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and
Average Rates of Electricity Supply in
India, dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual
country-wide, publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity
rates charged to small, medium, and
large industries in India. Because the
resulting value is not contemporaneous
with the POR, we inflated the rates
using the WPI. See Surrogate Value
Memo.
On May 14, 2010, the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘CAFC’’) in Dorbest Ltd. v. United
States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2010), found that the ‘‘{regressionbased} method for calculating wage
rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR
351.408(c)(3)} uses data not permitted
by {the statutory requirements laid out
in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C.
§ 1677b(c))}.’’ The Department is
continuing to evaluate options for
determining labor values in light of the
recent CAFC decision. However, for
these preliminary results, we have
calculated an hourly wage rate to use in
valuing the respondents’ reported labor
input by averaging industry-specific
earnings and/or wages in countries that
are economically comparable to the PRC
and that are significant producers of
comparable merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this
administrative review, the Department
is valuing labor using a simple average
industry-specific wage rate using
earnings or wage data reported under
Chapter 5B by the International Labor
Organization (‘‘ILO’’). To achieve an
industry-specific labor value, we relied
on industry-specific labor data from the
countries we determined to be both
economically comparable to the PRC,
and significant producers of comparable
merchandise. A full description of the
industry-specific wage rate calculation
methodology is provided in the
Surrogate Value Memo. The Department
calculated a simple average industryspecific wage rate of $1.36 for these
preliminary results. Specifically, for this
review, the Department has calculated
the wage rate using a simple average of
the data provided to the ILO under SubClassification 15 of the ISIC–Revision 3
standard by countries determined to be
both economically comparable to the
PRC and significant producers of
comparable merchandise. The
Department finds the two-digit
description under ISIC–Revision 3
(‘‘Manufacture of Food Products and
Beverages’’) to be the best available wage
rate surrogate value on the record
because it is specific and derived from
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8343
industries that produce merchandise
comparable to the subject merchandise.
Consequently, we averaged the ILO
industry-specific wage rate data or
earnings data available from the
following countries found to be
economically comparable to the PRC
and significant producers of comparable
merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt,
Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, the Philippines,
Thailand, and Ukraine. For further
information on the calculation of the
wage rate, see Surrogate Value Memo.
To value water, the Department used
data from the Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (https://
www.midcindia.org) since it includes a
wide range of industrial water tariffs.
This source provides industrial water
rates within the Maharashtra province
for ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ and ‘‘outside
industrial areas’’ from April 2009
through December 2009. See Surrogate
Value Memo.
We valued diesel using data from the
International Energy Agency publication
Energy Prices & Taxes, Quarterly
Statistics (Fourth Quarter 2009), which
uses 2008 data that is tax and duty
exclusive. See Surrogate Value Memo.
To value truck freight expenses, we
used a per-unit average rate calculated
from data on the Info Banc Web site:
https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/
logtruck.htm. The logistics section of
this Web site contains inland freight
truck rates between many large Indian
cities.
We valued brokerage and handling
using a price list of export procedures
necessary to export a standardized cargo
of goods in India. The price list is
compiled based on a survey case study
of the procedural requirements for
trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India that is
published in Doing Business 2010:
India, published by the World Bank.
To value factory overhead, sales,
general and administrative expenses,
and profit, we relied upon publicly
available information in the 2008–2009
annual report of Falcon Marine Exports
Ltd., an integrated Indian producer of
subject merchandise. See Surrogate
Value Memo.
Where appropriate, we made currency
conversions into U.S. dollars, in
accordance with section 773A(a) of the
Act, based on the exchange rates in
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as
certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
The Department has determined that
the following preliminary dumping
margins exist for the period February 1,
2009, through January 31, 2010:
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
8344
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Notices
Exporter
Hilltop International 10
Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd..
PRC-Wide Entity 11 ...
Margin
0.14% (de minimis)
0.00% (zero)
112.81%
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
As stated above in the Rate for NonSelected Companies section of this
notice, Regal qualified for a separate rate
in this review. Moreover, as stated
above in the Respondent Selection
section of this notice, we limited this
review by selecting the largest exporter
and did not select Regal as a mandatory
respondent. Therefore, we have
preliminarily assigned to Regal a
dumping margin based on its most
recently calculated rate in PRC Shrimp
AR4 because the mandatory respondent
in this review received a de minimis
rate and it is not the Department’s
practice to assign separate rates based
on rates that are de minimis or zero, or
based entirely on facts available.
The Department will disclose
calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within
five days of the date of publication of
this notice in accordance with 19 CFR
351.224(b).
In accordance with 19 CFR
351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of
this administrative review, interested
parties may submit publicly available
information to value FOPs within 20
days after the date of publication of
these preliminary results. Interested
parties must provide the Department
with supporting documentation for the
publicly available information to value
each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final
results of this administrative review,
interested parties may submit factual
information to rebut, clarify, or correct
factual information submitted by an
interested party less than ten days
before, on, or after, the applicable
deadline for submission of such factual
information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits
new information only insofar as it
rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information
recently placed on the record. The
Department generally cannot accept the
submission of additional, previously
absent-from-the-record alternative
surrogate value information pursuant to
19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine From
the People’s Republic of China: Final
10 This rate shall also apply to the single entity
consisting of Hilltop International, Yelin Enterprise
Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty Corporation, and Ever Hope
International Co., Ltd.
11 The PRC-wide entity includes the 80
companies under review that are referenced above
in footnote 9, as well as any company that does not
have a separate rate.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Feb 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final
Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying
Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
Interested parties may submit case
briefs and/or written comments no later
than 30 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results
of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii).
Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written
comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments may be filed no
later than five days after the deadline for
filing case briefs. See 19 CFR
351.309(d). The Department urges
interested parties to provide an
executive summary of each argument
contained within the case briefs and
rebuttal briefs.
The Department will issue the final
results of this administrative review,
which will include the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such
comments, within 120 days of
publication of these preliminary results,
pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the
Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the
Department will determine, and CBP
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries covered by these
reviews. The Department intends to
issue assessment instructions to CBP 15
days after the publication date of the
final results of this review. In
accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1),
for the mandatory respondent, we
calculated an exporter/importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rate for
the merchandise subject to this review.
Where the respondent has reported
reliable entered values, we calculated
importer (or customer)-specific ad
valorem rates by aggregating the
dumping margins calculated for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total
entered value of the sales to each
importer (or customer). See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or
customer)-specific ad valorem rate is
greater than de minimis, we will apply
the assessment rate to the entered value
of the importer’s/customer’s entries
during the POR. See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1).
Where we do not have entered values
for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the
antidumping duties due for all U.S.
sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total
quantity sold to that importer (or
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To
determine whether the duty assessment
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
rates are de minimis, in accordance with
the requirement set forth in 19 CFR
351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer
(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios
based on the estimated entered value.
Where an importer (or customer)specific ad valorem rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to
liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties. See 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2).
For the companies receiving a
separate rate that were not selected for
individual review, we will assign an
assessment rate based on the cash
deposit rate calculated pursuant to
section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. Where
the weighted average ad valorem rate is
zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP
to liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties. See 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2).
For those companies for which this
review has been preliminarily
rescinded,12 the Department intends to
assess antidumping duties at rates equal
to the cash deposit of estimated
antidumping duties required at the time
of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse,
for consumption, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.212(c)(2), if the review is
rescinded for these companies in the
final results.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results for
shipments of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the
Act: (1) For the exporters listed above,
the cash deposit rate will be that
established in the final results of review
(except, if the rate is zero or de minimis,
no cash deposit will be required); (2) for
all other PRC exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate
and, thus, are a part of the PRC-wide
entity, the cash-deposit rate will be the
PRC-wide rate established in the final
results of review; and (3) for all nonPRC exporters of subject merchandise,
the cash-deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC supplier of that
exporter. These deposit requirements
shall remain in effect until further
notice.
12 These include Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood
Co., Ltd. (d.b.a. Shantou Yelin Quick-Freeze Marine
Products Co., Ltd.); Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat
Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Fuqing Yihua
Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.; and Fuqing Minhua Trading
Co., Ltd.
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 30 / Monday, February 14, 2011 / Notices
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a
preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR
351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding
the reimbursement of antidumping
duties prior to liquidation of the
relevant entries during this POR. Failure
to comply with this requirement could
result in the Secretary’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping
duties.
This administrative review and this
notice are in accordance with sections
751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19
CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4).
Dated: February 7, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–3246 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
On page 7152, in the first column, in
the signature block, ‘‘Dated: January 31,
2010’’ should read ‘‘Dated: January 31,
2011’’.
[FR Doc. C1–2011–2884 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
RIN 0648–XA130
Endangered and Threatened Species;
Recovery Plan Module for Columbia
River Estuary Salmon and Steelhead
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of availability; recovery
plan module for Columbia River estuary
salmon and steelhead.
AGENCY:
NMFS announces the
adoption of the Columbia River Estuary
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Recovery
International Trade Administration
Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead
(Estuary Module). The Estuary Module
[A–570–836]
addresses the estuary recovery needs of
all ESA-listed salmon and steelhead in
Notice of Final Results of Expedited
the Columbia River Basin. All Columbia
Sunset Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order: Glycine From the People’s Basin salmon and steelhead ESA
recovery plans will incorporate the
Republic of China
Estuary Module by reference.
Correction
ADDRESSES: For additional information
about the Estuary Module, contact Patty
In notice document 2011–2883 on
Dornbusch, NMFS, 1201 NE Lloyd
page 7150 in the issue of Wednesday,
Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR
February 9, 2011, make the following
97232. Electronic copies of the Estuary
correction:
On page 7150, in the third column, in Module and a response to public
comments on the Proposed Estuary
the signature block, ‘‘Dated: January 31,
Module are available online at https://
2010’’ should read ‘‘Dated: January 31,
www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery2011’’.
Planning/ESA–Recovery-Plans/Estuary[FR Doc. C1–2011–2883 Filed 2–11–11; 8:45 am]
Module.cfm. For a CD–ROM of these
BILLING CODE 1504–01–D
documents, call Joanna Donnor at (503)
736–4721 or e-mail a request to
joanna.donnor@noaa.gov with the
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
subject line ‘‘CD–ROM Request for Final
Estuary Recovery Plan Module.’’
International Trade Administration
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[A–351–602, A–588–602, A–583–605, A–549–
Patty Dornbusch, (503) 230–5430.
807, A–570–814]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Certain Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe
Background
Fittings From Brazil, Japan, Taiwan,
Thailand, and the People’s Republic of
The Endangered Species Act of 1973
China: Final Results of the Expedited
(ESA), as amended (16 U.S.C. et seq.)
Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping
requires that a recovery plan be
Duty Orders
developed and implemented for species
listed as endangered or threatened
Correction
under the statute, unless such a plan
In notice document 2011–2884
would not promote the recovery of the
appearing on pages 7151–7152 in the
species. Recovery plans must contain (1)
issue of Wednesday, February 9, 2011,
objective, measurable criteria which,
make the following correction:
when met, would result in a
SUMMARY:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:38 Feb 11, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8345
determination that the species is no
longer threatened or endangered; (2)
site-specific management actions
necessary to achieve the plan’s goals;
and (3) estimates of the time required
and costs to implement recovery
actions. NMFS is the agency responsible
for developing recovery plans for
salmon and steelhead, and we will use
the plans to guide efforts to restore
endangered and threatened Pacific
salmon and steelhead to the point that
they are again self-sustaining in their
ecosystems and no longer need the
protections of the ESA.
In the Columbia River basin, the
following salmon evolutionarily
significant units (ESUs) and steelhead
distinct population segments (DPSs) are
listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA: Snake River Sockeye
salmon, Snake River spring/summer
Chinook salmon, Snake River fall
Chinook salmon, Snake River steelhead,
Upper Columbia River spring Chinook
salmon, Upper Columbia River
steelhead, Middle Columbia River
steelhead, Lower Columbia River
Chinook salmon, Lower Columbia River
coho salmon, Columbia River chum
salmon, Lower Columbia River
steelhead, Upper Willamette River
spring Chinook salmon, and Upper
Willamette River steelhead. Recovery
plans are either complete or in
development for these 13 salmon ESUs
and steelhead DPSs.
Because we believe that local support
for recovery plans is essential, we have
approached recovery planning
collaboratively, with strong reliance on
existing state, regional, and tribal
planning processes. For instance, in the
Columbia Basin, recovery plans have
been or are being developed by regional
recovery boards convened by
Washington State, by the State of
Oregon in conjunction with stakeholder
teams, and by NMFS in Idaho with the
participation of local agencies. We
review locally developed recovery
plans, ensure that they satisfy ESA
requirements, and make them available
for public review and comment before
formally adopting them as ESA recovery
plans.
Recovery plans must consider the
factors affecting species survival
throughout the entire life cycle. The
salmonid life cycle includes spawning
and rearing in the tributaries, migrating
through the mainstem Columbia River
and estuary to the ocean, and returning
to the natal stream. In the estuary,
juvenile and adult salmon and steelhead
undergo physiological changes needed
to make the transition to and from
saltwater. They use the varying subhabitats of the estuary—the shallows,
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 30 (Monday, February 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8338-8345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3246]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-893]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of
China: Preliminary Results and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
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 the People's Republic of China
(``PRC''), covering the period of review (``POR'') of February 1, 2009,
through January 31, 2010. As discussed below, the Department
preliminarily determines that the respondent in this review did not
make sales in the United States at prices below normal value (``NV'')
during the POR.
DATES: Effective Date: February 14, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kabir Archuletta, AD/CVD Operations,
Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-2593.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Department received timely requests from members of the Ad Hoc
Shrimp Trade Action Committee (``Petitioner'') and the American Shrimp
Processors Association and the Louisiana Shrimp Association
(collectively, ``domestic parties''), in accordance with 19 CFR
351.213(b), during the anniversary month of February, for
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from the
PRC. On April 9, 2010, the Department initiated an administrative
review of 92 producers/exporters of subject merchandise from the PRC.
See Notice of Initiation of Administrative Reviews and Requests for
Revocation in Part of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the
People's Republic of China, 75 FR 18154 (April 9, 2010)
(``Initiation''). However, after accounting for duplicate names and
additional trade names associated with certain exporters, the number of
companies upon which we initiated was actually 88.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The following companies were duplicated: Fuqing Yihua
Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. and/or Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Products Co.,
Ltd., Regal Marine Resources Co., Ltd., Shantou Longsheng Aquatic
Product, and Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between April 15, 2010, and April 27, 2010, the following companies
submitted ``no shipment certifications'' \2\: Allied Pacific Food
(Dalian) Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co.,
Ltd., Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific
(H.K.) Co., Ltd., and King Royal Investments Ltd.; \3\ Shantou Yelin
Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. (doing business as (``d.b.a.'') Shantou Yelin
Quick-Freeze Marine Products Co., Ltd.); Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co.,
Ltd.; Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd.; and Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat
Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Companies have the opportunity to submit statements
certifying that they did not ship the subject merchandise to the
United States during the POR.
\3\ The Department did not initiate upon Zhanjiang Allied
Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd., Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd., and
King Royal Investments Ltd. because no parties requested a review of
them for this POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2010, Petitioner withdrew its request for an
administrative review of Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang)
Co., Ltd. and Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd. Petitioner was the
only party to request a review of these companies. Accordingly, on July
20, 2010, the Department published a partial rescission with respect to
these two companies. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
People's Republic of China: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 75 FR 42070 (July 20, 2010) (``Partial
Rescission'').
Respondent Selection
On May 17, 2010, in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''), the Department selected
Hilltop International (``Hilltop'') for individual examination in this
review, since it was the largest exporter by volume during the POR,
based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') data of U.S.
imports. See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, Office 9, from Kabir
Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative
[[Page 8339]]
Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People's Republic of
China: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated May 17,
2010.
Questionnaires
On May 18, 2010, the Department issued its initial non-market
economy (``NME'') antidumping duty questionnaire to Hilltop, and issued
supplemental questionnaires to Hilltop between July 2010 and November
2010. Hilltop responded to the Department's initial and subsequent
supplemental questionnaires between June 2010 and November 2010.
Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values
On July 20, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter
requesting comments on the surrogate country and information pertaining
to the valuation of factors of production (``FOPs''). On August 31,
2010, the Department received comments from Hilltop and Petitioner
regarding selection of a surrogate country. On September 10, 2010, the
Department received comments from Hilltop, domestic parties and
Petitioner regarding selection of surrogate country and valuation of
FOPs. On September 20, 2010, the Department received rebuttal comments
from Hilltop regarding surrogate value submissions.
Case Schedule
On September 17, 2010, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act, we extended the time period for issuing the preliminary
results by 120 days, until February 28, 2011. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Extension of
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR
56988 (September 17, 2010).
Scope of the Order
The scope of the order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and
prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced
by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or
tail-off,\4\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise
processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which includes
the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the
scope of the order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (``HTS''), 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, white-leg 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 the 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 the order.
Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS
subheading 1605.20.1020); (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 (HTS subheadings 0306.23.0020 and 0306.23.0040); (4) shrimp
and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.0510); (5) dried
shrimp and prawns; (6) Lee Kum Kee's shrimp sauce; (7) canned warmwater
shrimp and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.1040); (8) certain dusted
shrimp; and (9) 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 individually quick frozen (``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 the order are currently classified under
the following HTS subheadings: 0306.13.0003, 0306.13.0006,
0306.13.0009, 0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015, 0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021,
0306.13.0024, 0306.13.0027, 0306.13.0040, 1605.20.1010 and
1605.20.1030. These HTS subheadings are provided for convenience and
for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the
written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.
Affiliation/Single Entity
Based on the evidence on the record in this administrative review,
including information found in Hilltop's questionnaire responses, the
Department preliminarily finds affiliation between Hilltop and
Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. and Fuqing
Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd., producers of subject merchandise,
pursuant to section 771(33)(F) of the Act. Further, we preliminarily
find Hilltop affiliated with Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty
Corporation, and Ever Hope International Co., Ltd., Taiwanese resellers
of subject merchandise, pursuant to 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.
Lastly, we preliminarily find affiliation between Hilltop and Ocean
Duke Corporation, a U.S. importer of subject merchandise, pursuant to
sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act.
Based on the evidence presented in Hilltop's questionnaire
responses, we preliminarily find that Hilltop, Yelin Enterprise Co.,
Ltd., Ocean Beauty Corporation, and Ever Hope International Co., Ltd.,
should be treated as a single entity for the purposes of this
administrative review. This finding is based on our determination that
Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty Corporation, and Ever Hope
International Co., Ltd., are involved in the export of subject
merchandise sold by Hilltop and that a significant potential for
manipulation of price or production exists between these entities.\5\
For a detailed discussion of
[[Page 8340]]
this issue, see Memorandum to the File, through Catherine Bertrand,
Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office
9, ``Preliminary Determination of Affiliation/Single Entity Treatment
of Hilltop International, Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty
Corporation and Ever Hope International Co., Ltd.,'' issued
concurrently with this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ While Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty Corporation,
and Ever Hope International Co., Ltd., are not producers of subject
merchandise, we note that where companies are affiliated, and there
exists a significant potential for manipulation of prices and/or
export decisions, the Department has found it appropriate to treat
those companies as a single entity. The Court of International Trade
upheld the Department's decision to include export decisions in its
analysis of whether there was a significant potential for
manipulation. See Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 248 F.
Supp. 2d 1323, 1343 (CIT 2003). In this case, not only are Yelin
Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty Corporation, and Ever Hope
International Co., Ltd. exporters of subject merchandise, but they
are the sole intermediaries for all transactions of subject
merchandise between Hilltop and its U.S. affiliate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Review
As discussed in the Background section above, several companies
filed no shipment certifications indicating that they did not export
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The
Department's practice concerning ``no-shipment'' respondents has been
to rescind the administrative review if the respondent certifies that
it had no shipments and the Department has confirmed through its
examination of data from CBP that there were no shipments of subject
merchandise during the POR. See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing
Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997).
On May 11, 2010, the Department sent an inquiry to CBP to determine
whether CBP entry data is consistent with the statements of Allied
Pacific Aquatic Products Zhanjiang Co. Ltd. and Allied Pacific Food
(Dalian) Co., Ltd. See Memorandum to the File from Kabir Archuletta,
Analyst, Office 9, regarding ``U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Inquiries'' dated December 15, 2010 (``Customs Inquiries''). As stated
above, Petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review of
Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. and Allied
Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd., and on July 20, 2010, the Department
published in the Federal Register a partial rescission notice with
respect to these two companies. See Partial Rescission.
On May 17, 2010, the Department sent an inquiry to CBP to confirm
the claims made by Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. (d.b.a. Shantou Yelin
Quick-Freeze Marine Products Co., Ltd.); Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat
Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.;
and Fuqing Minhua Trading Co., Ltd. See Customs Inquiries. Because CBP
did not respond to the Department's inquiry \6\ and no party submitted
comments, we are preliminarily rescinding the review with respect to
Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. (d.b.a. Shantou Yelin Quick-
Freeze Marine Products Co., Ltd.); Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick
Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.; and
Fuqing Minhua Trading Co., Ltd. See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets
From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 72 FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), unchanged in Certain
Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission, 73 FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ CBP only responds to the Department's inquiry when there are
records of shipments from the company in question. See Certain Hot-
Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon Quality Steel Flat Products From Brazil:
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75
FR 65453, 65454 (October 25, 2010); Certain Circular Welded Carbon
Steel Pipes and Tubes From Taiwan: Notice of Intent To Rescind
Administrative Review, 74 FR 3559, 3560 (January 21, 2009); and
Certain In-Shell Raw Pistachios From Iran: Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 9292, 9293 (February 20, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NME Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving the PRC, the
PRC has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority. See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of
China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005
Administrative Review and Notice of Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper
Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). None of the parties to this
proceeding has contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV
in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME
countries.
Separate Rates
A designation of a country as an NME remains in effect until it is
revoked by the Department. See section 771(18)(C) of the Act.
Accordingly, there is a rebuttable presumption that all companies
within the PRC are subject to government control and, thus, should be
assessed a single antidumping duty rate. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative
Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 (September 8, 2006); Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial
Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades
and Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May
22, 2006).
In the Initiation, the Department notified parties of the
application process by which exporters and producers may obtain
separate rate status in NME proceedings. See Initiation. It is the
Department's policy to assign all exporters of the merchandise subject
to review in NME countries a single rate unless an exporter can
affirmatively demonstrate an absence of government control, both in law
(de jure) and in fact (de facto), with respect to exports. To establish
whether a company is sufficiently independent to be entitled to a
separate, company-specific rate, the Department analyzes each exporting
entity in an NME country under the test established in Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the
People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon
Carbide From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-
owned or located in a market economy, then a separate rate analysis is
not necessary to determine whether it is independent from government
control. See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Petroleum Wax Candles From the People's Republic of China, 72
FR 52355, 52356 (September 13, 2007).
In this administrative review, Zhanjiang Regal (``Regal'') is the
only company that submitted a separate rate certification. See Regal's
Separate Rate Certification dated May 10, 2010. Additionally, the
Department received completed responses to the Section A portion of the
NME antidumping questionnaire from Hilltop, which contained information
pertaining to the company's eligibility for a separate rate. See
Hilltop's Section A response dated June 15, 2010. All other companies
upon which the Department initiated an administrative review that have
not been rescinded did not submit either a separate rate application or
certification. Therefore, we have determined it appropriate to consider
those companies that did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate
rate status as part of the PRC-wide entity.
[[Page 8341]]
Separate Rate Recipients
Wholly Foreign-Owned
Hilltop has reported that it is a Hong Kong based exporter of
subject merchandise. See Hilltop's Section A response dated June 15,
2010, at 1. In its separate rate submission, Regal, the sole applicant
for separate rate status in this administrative review, certified that
it was 100 percent owned by foreign entity/entities located in
Singapore and Hong Kong. Therefore, there is no PRC ownership of
Hilltop or Regal, and because the Department has no evidence indicating
that either of these companies are under the control of the PRC, a
separate rate analysis is not necessary to determine whether it is
independent from government control.\7\ Consequently, we preliminarily
determine that Hilltop and Regal have met the criteria for a separate
rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China:
Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the Fourth New Shipper
Review and Rescission of the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001), unchanged in Brake
Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and
Partial Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of
Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16,
2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value: Creatine Monohydrate From the People's Republic of China, 64
FR 71104 (December 20, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Initiation, we instructed all companies requesting separate
rate status in this administrative review to submit, as appropriate,
either a separate rate status application or certification. See
Initiation. As discussed above, the Department initiated this
administrative review with respect to 88 companies. On July 20, 2010,
the Department published a partial rescission of this antidumping duty
order with respect to Allied Pacific Aquatic Products Zhanjiang Co.
Ltd. and Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd. See Partial Rescission.
Additionally, we are preliminarily rescinding this review with respect
to four companies \8\ because we have preliminarily determined that
they had no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Thus,
including Hilltop and Regal, 82 companies remain subject to this
review. While Hilltop and Regal provided documentation supporting their
eligibility for a separate rate, the remaining companies under active
review have not demonstrated their eligibility for a separate rate.
Therefore, the Department preliminarily determines that there were
exports of merchandise under review from 80 PRC exporters that did not
demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status.\9\ As a result,
the Department is treating these 80 PRC exporters as part of the PRC-
wide entity, subject to the PRC-wide rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Those companies are: Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.,
d.b.a. Shantou Yelin Quick-Freeze Marine Products Co., Ltd.;
Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Fuqing
Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.; and Fuqing Minhua Trading Co., Ltd.
\9\ Those companies are: Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.;
Beautiful Lighting Co., Ltd.; Beihai Qinguo Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.;
Capital Prospect; Century Distribution Systems (Shenz); Dafu Foods
Industry; Daishan Baofa Aquatic Product Co.; Elaite Group Co., Ltd.;
Everflow Ind. Supply; Flags Wins Trading Co., Ltd.; Fuchang Aquatic
Products; Fujian Haiding Global Foods; Fujian Provincial Meihua
Aquat.; Fuqing Maowang Seafood Development; Fuqing Xuhu Aquatic Food
Trdg.; Gallant Ocean (Nanhai), Ltd.; Geelong Sales; Guangdong
Jiahuang Foods; Guangdong Jinhang Foods Co., Ltd.; Guangdong Wanya
Foods Fty. Co., Ltd.; Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd.; Hainan Hailisheng
Food Co., Ltd.; Hainan Seaberry Seafoods; Hainan Siyuan Foods Co.,
Ltd.; Hainan Zhongyu Seafood Co., Ltd.; Huasheng Aquatic Pro.
Factory; Huian County Import & Export and Trading Co.; Innovative
Aluminum; Intecs Service; Jet Power International Ltd.; JetStar Co.;
Leizhou Yunyuan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Liang Hsin Lighting
Shenzhen; Maoming Changxing Foods; Maoming Jiahui Foods Co., Ltd.;
New Peak Service; North Seafood Group Co.; Panasonic Mfg. Xiamen
Co.; Phoenix Intl.; Rizhao Smart Foods; Ruian Huasheng Aquatic
Products Fac.; Savvy Seafood Inc.; Sea Trade International Inc.;
Second Aquatic Food; Shandong Huashijia Foods; Shanghai Apa
International Trading; Shanghai Smiling Food Co., Ltd.; Shantou Jin
Cheng Food Co.; Shantou Longfen Foodstuff Co.; Shantou Longsheng
Aquatic Product Foodstuff Co., Ltd.; Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff
Co., Ltd. and/or Shantou Red Garden Food Processing Co., Ltd.;
Shantou Wanya Foods Fty. Co., Ltd. (Branch Factory); Shantou
Xinwanya Aquatic Product Ltd.; Shantou Yue Xiang Commercial Trading
Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Pingyue Trading Co., Ltd.; SLK Hardware;
Sysgration; Thai Royal Frozen Food Zhanjiang Co., Ltd.; Tianjin
Dongjiang Food Co., Ltd.; Tongwei Hainan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.;
Top One Intl.; Wenling Xingdi Aquatic Product; Yangcheng Seahorse
Foods; Yangjiang Wanshida Seafood Co., Ltd.; Zhangjiang Bo Bo Go
Ocean; Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Products; Zhanjiang Fuchang
Aquatic Product Freezing Plant; Zhanjiang Go-harvest Aquatic
Products Co., Ltd.; Zhanjiang Haizhou Aquatic Product; Zhanjiang
Huibaoye Trading Co., Ltd.; Zhanjiang Jebshin Seafood; Zhanjiang
Jinguo Marine Foods Company Limited; Zhanjiang Longwei Aquatic
Product; Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang
Industrial Group Co., Ltd.; Zhj Jinguo Marine Foods; Zhoushan Corp.
for Intl. Economic and Technical Cooperation; Zhoushan Haohai
Aquatic Products; Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd.; and
Zhoushan Qiangren Imp. & Exp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate for Non-Selected Companies
In accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department
employed a limited examination methodology, as it did not have the
resources to examine all companies for which a review request was made.
As stated above, the Department selected Hilltop as the mandatory
respondent in this review. In addition to the mandatory respondent,
only Regal submitted timely information as requested by the Department
and remains subject to review as a cooperative separate rate
respondent.
We note that the statute and the Department's regulations do not
directly address the establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for examination where the Department
limited its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section
777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department's practice in cases involving
limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes
of trade has been to look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act instructs
that we are not to calculate an all-others rate using any zero or de
minimis margins or any margins based entirely on facts available.
Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that, where all margins
are zero rates, de minimis rates, or rates based entirely on facts
available, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning the rate
to non-selected respondents. In this instance, we have calculated a de
minimis rate for the sole mandatory respondent, Hilltop.
In exercising this discretion to determine a non-examined rate, the
Department considers relevant the fact that section 735(c)(5) of the
Act: (a) Is explicitly applicable to the determination of an all-others
rate in an investigation; and (b) articulates a preference that the
Department avoid zero, de minimis rates or rates based entirely on
facts available when it determines the all others rate. The statute's
statement that averaging of zero/de minimis margins and margins based
entirely on facts available may be a reasonable method, and the
Statement of Administrative Action's (``SAA'') indication that such
averaging may be the expected method, should be read in the context of
an investigation. See SAA accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 872 (1994), reprinted in 1994
U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4200. First, if there are only zero or de minimis
margins determined in the investigation (and there is no other entity
to which a facts available margin has been applied), the investigation
would terminate and no order would be issued. Thus, the provision
necessarily only applies to circumstances in which there are either
both zero/de minimis and total facts available margins, or only total
facts available margins. Second, when such rates are the only rates
determined in an investigation, there is little information on which to
rely to determine an appropriate all-others rate. In this
[[Page 8342]]
context, therefore, the SAA's stated expected method is reasonable: The
zero/de minimis and facts available margins may be the only or best
data the Department has available to apply to non-selected companies.
We note that the Department has sought other reasonable means to
assign separate-rate margins to non-reviewed companies in instances
with calculated zero rates, de minimis rates, or rates based entirely
on facts available for the mandatory respondents. See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results
and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,
74 FR 47191, 47194 (September 15, 2009) (``Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final'').
In Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final, the Department assigned to those
separate rate companies with no history of an individually calculated
rate the margin calculated for cooperative separate rate respondents in
the underlying investigation. However, for those separate rate
respondents that had received a calculated rate in a prior segment,
concurrent with or more recent than the calculated rate in the
underlying investigation, the Department assigned that calculated rate
as the company's separate rate in the review at hand.
Thus, we find that a reasonable method in the instant review is to
assign to the non-reviewed company, Regal, its most recent calculated
rate. Pursuant to this method, we are preliminarily assigning a rate of
zero to Regal, its calculated rate in the previous administrative
review. See Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 49460,
49463 (August 13, 2010) (``PRC Shrimp AR4''). In assigning this
separate rate, the Department did not impute the actions of any other
companies to the behavior of the non-individually examined company, but
based this determination on record evidence that may be deemed
reasonably reflective of the potential dumping margin for the non-
individually examined company, Regal, in this administrative review.
PRC-Wide Entity
We have preliminarily determined that 80 companies did not
demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate and are properly
considered part of the PRC-wide entity. As explained above in the
Separate Rates section, all companies within the PRC are considered to
be subject to government control unless they are able to demonstrate an
absence of government control with respect to their export activities.
Such companies are thus assigned a single antidumping duty rate
distinct from the separate rate(s) determined for companies that are
found to be independent of government control with respect to their
export activities. We consider the influence that the government has
been found to have over the economy to warrant determining a rate for
the entity that is distinct from the rates found for companies that
have provided sufficient evidence to establish that they operate freely
with respect to their export activities. See Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative
Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From the
People's Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53080 (September 8, 2006).
Therefore, we are assigning as the entity's current rate 112.81
percent, the only rate ever determined for the PRC-wide entity in this
proceeding.
Surrogate Country
When the Department investigates imports from an NME country,
section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, in most
circumstances, on the NME producer's FOPs, valued in a surrogate market
economy country or countries considered to be appropriate by the
Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing
the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the
prices or costs of FOPs in one or more market economy countries that
are at a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME
country and significant producers of comparable merchandise. The
sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the Normal
Value section below and in the Memorandum to the File through Catherine
Bertrand, Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir Archuletta, Case
Analyst, Office 9, ``Fifth Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Surrogate Factor
Valuations for the Preliminary Results,'' dated concurrently with this
notice (``Surrogate Value Memo'').
As discussed in the NME Country Status section, above, the
Department considers the PRC to be an NME country. The Department
determined that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Ukraine
and Peru are countries comparable to the PRC in terms of economic
development. See the Department's letter to all interested parties,
dated July 20, 2010. Moreover, it is the Department's practice to
select an appropriate surrogate country based on the availability and
reliability of data from these countries. See Department Policy
Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate Country Selection
Process, dated March 1, 2004. The Department finds India to be a
reliable source for surrogate values because India is at a comparable
level of economic development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a
significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has publicly
available and reliable data. Furthermore, the Department notes that
India has been the primary surrogate country in past segments. As noted
above, Hilltop and domestic parties submitted surrogate value data for
FOPs for India, and Petitioner submitted surrogate value data for
certain FOPs for Thailand on September 10, 2010. Given the above facts,
the Department has selected India as the primary surrogate country for
this review. See Surrogate Value Memo.
U.S. Price
Constructed Export Price
For Hilltop's sales, we based U.S. price on constructed export
price (``CEP'') in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act, because
sales were made on behalf of Hilltop by its U.S. affiliate to
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. For these sales, we based
CEP on prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United States.
Where appropriate, we made deductions from the starting price (gross
unit price) for foreign movement expenses, international movement
expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and appropriate selling expenses, in
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also deducted
those selling expenses associated with economic activities occurring in
the United States. We deducted, where appropriate, commissions,
inventory carrying costs, credit expenses, and indirect selling
expenses. Where foreign movement expenses, international movement
expenses, or U.S. movement expenses were provided by Chinese service
providers or paid for in Chinese renminbi, we valued these services
using surrogate values. See Surrogate Value Memo for details regarding
the surrogate values for movement expenses. For those expenses that
were provided by a market-economy provider and paid for in market-
economy currency, we used the reported expense. Due to the proprietary
nature of certain adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed description
of all adjustments made to U.S. price for Hilltop, see Surrogate Value
Memo.
[[Page 8343]]
Normal Value
Methodology
Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the NV using an FOP methodology if the merchandise is
exported from an NME and the information does not permit the
calculation of NV using home-market prices, third-country prices, or
constructed value under section 773(a) of the Act. The Department bases
NV on the FOPs because the presence of government controls on various
aspects of NMEs renders price comparisons and the calculation of
production costs invalid under the Department's normal methodologies.
Factor Valuations
In accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, we calculated NV
based on FOP data reported by the respondents for the POR. To calculate
NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by
publicly available surrogate values (except as discussed below).
In selecting the surrogate values, we considered the quality,
specificity, and contemporaneity of the data. As appropriate, we
adjusted input prices by including freight costs to make them delivered
prices. We added to each Indian import surrogate value a surrogate
freight cost calculated from the shorter of the reported distance from
the domestic supplier to the factory or the distance from the nearest
seaport to the factory, where appropriate. See Sigma Corp. v. United
States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we could not
obtain publicly available information contemporaneous to the POR with
which to value FOPs, we adjusted the surrogate values, where
appropriate, using the Indian Wholesale Price Index (``WPI'') as
published in the International Monetary Fund's International Financial
Statistics. See Surrogate Value Memo.
The Department used Indian import statistics from Global Trade
Atlas to value the raw material and packing material inputs that
Hilltop used to produce subject merchandise during the POR, except
where listed below.
To value shrimp larvae, the Department used the 2008-2009 annual
report of Sharat Industries Ltd. We find this to be the best source on
the record because it is contemporaneous with the POR and is based on
actual market prices. See Surrogate Value Memo.
We valued electricity using the updated electricity price data for
small, medium, and large industries, as published by the Central
Electricity Authority, an administrative body of the Government of
India, in its publication titled Electricity Tariff & Duty and Average
Rates of Electricity Supply in India, dated March 2008. These
electricity rates represent actual country-wide, publicly-available
information on tax-exclusive electricity rates charged to small,
medium, and large industries in India. Because the resulting value is
not contemporaneous with the POR, we inflated the rates using the WPI.
See Surrogate Value Memo.
On May 14, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(``CAFC'') in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed.
Cir. 2010), found that the ``{regression-based{time} method for
calculating wage rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3){time}
uses data not permitted by {the statutory requirements laid out in
section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. Sec. 1677b(c)){time} .'' The
Department is continuing to evaluate options for determining labor
values in light of the recent CAFC decision. However, for these
preliminary results, we have calculated an hourly wage rate to use in
valuing the respondents' reported labor input by averaging industry-
specific earnings and/or wages in countries that are economically
comparable to the PRC and that are significant producers of comparable
merchandise.
For the preliminary results of this administrative review, the
Department is valuing labor using a simple average industry-specific
wage rate using earnings or wage data reported under Chapter 5B by the
International Labor Organization (``ILO''). To achieve an industry-
specific labor value, we relied on industry-specific labor data from
the countries we determined to be both economically comparable to the
PRC, and significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full
description of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology
is provided in the Surrogate Value Memo. The Department calculated a
simple average industry-specific wage rate of $1.36 for these
preliminary results. Specifically, for this review, the Department has
calculated the wage rate using a simple average of the data provided to
the ILO under Sub-Classification 15 of the ISIC-Revision 3 standard by
countries determined to be both economically comparable to the PRC and
significant producers of comparable merchandise. The Department finds
the two-digit description under ISIC-Revision 3 (``Manufacture of Food
Products and Beverages'') to be the best available wage rate surrogate
value on the record because it is specific and derived from industries
that produce merchandise comparable to the subject merchandise.
Consequently, we averaged the ILO industry-specific wage rate data or
earnings data available from the following countries found to be
economically comparable to the PRC and significant producers of
comparable merchandise: Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Peru, the
Philippines, Thailand, and Ukraine. For further information on the
calculation of the wage rate, see Surrogate Value Memo.
To value water, the Department used data from the Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation (https://www.midcindia.org) since it
includes a wide range of industrial water tariffs. This source provides
industrial water rates within the Maharashtra province for ``inside
industrial areas'' and ``outside industrial areas'' from April 2009
through December 2009. See Surrogate Value Memo.
We valued diesel using data from the International Energy Agency
publication Energy Prices & Taxes, Quarterly Statistics (Fourth Quarter
2009), which uses 2008 data that is tax and duty exclusive. See
Surrogate Value Memo.
To value truck freight expenses, we used a per-unit average rate
calculated from data on the Info Banc Web site: https://www.infobanc.com/logistics/logtruck.htm. The logistics section of this
Web site contains inland freight truck rates between many large Indian
cities.
We valued brokerage and handling using a price list of export
procedures necessary to export a standardized cargo of goods in India.
The price list is compiled based on a survey case study of the
procedural requirements for trading a standard shipment of goods by
ocean transport in India that is published in Doing Business 2010:
India, published by the World Bank.
To value factory overhead, sales, general and administrative
expenses, and profit, we relied upon publicly available information in
the 2008-2009 annual report of Falcon Marine Exports Ltd., an
integrated Indian producer of subject merchandise. See Surrogate Value
Memo.
Where appropriate, we made currency conversions into U.S. dollars,
in accordance with section 773A(a) of the Act, based on the exchange
rates in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Preliminary Results of the Review
The Department has determined that the following preliminary
dumping margins exist for the period February 1, 2009, through January
31, 2010:
[[Page 8344]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exporter Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilltop International \10\................ 0.14% (de minimis)
Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine 0.00% (zero)
Resources Co., Ltd..
PRC-Wide Entity \11\...................... 112.81%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above in the Rate for Non-Selected Companies section of
this notice, Regal qualified for a separate rate in this review.
Moreover, as stated above in the Respondent Selection section of this
notice, we limited this review by selecting the largest exporter and
did not select Regal as a mandatory respondent. Therefore, we have
preliminarily assigned to Regal a dumping margin based on its most
recently calculated rate in PRC Shrimp AR4 because the mandatory
respondent in this review received a de minimis rate and it is not the
Department's practice to assign separate rates based on rates that are
de minimis or zero, or based entirely on facts available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ This rate shall also apply to the single entity consisting
of Hilltop International, Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty
Corporation, and Ever Hope International Co., Ltd.
\11\ The PRC-wide entity includes the 80 companies under review
that are referenced above in footnote 9, as well as any company that
does not have a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department will disclose calculations performed for these
preliminary results to the parties within five days of the date of
publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results
of this administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly
available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of
publication of these preliminary results. Interested parties must
provide the Department with supporting documentation for the publicly
available information to value each FOP. Additionally, in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final results of this administrative
review, interested parties may submit factual information to rebut,
clarify, or correct factual information submitted by an interested
party less than ten days before, on, or after, the applicable deadline
for submission of such factual information. However, the Department
notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits new information only insofar as
it rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on the
record. The Department generally cannot accept the submission of
additional, previously absent-from-the-record alternative surrogate
value information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine From
the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809
(October 17, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 2.
Interested parties may submit case briefs and/or written comments
no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these
preliminary results of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). Rebuttal
briefs and rebuttals to written comments, limited to issues raised in
such briefs or comments may be filed no later than five days after the
deadline for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). The Department
urges interested parties to provide an executive summary of each
argument contained within the case briefs and rebuttal briefs.
The Department will issue the final results of this administrative
review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised
in any such comments, within 120 days of publication of these
preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.
Assessment Rates
Upon issuance of the final results, the Department will determine,
and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
covered by these reviews. The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of the final
results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for
the mandatory respondent, we calculated an exporter/importer (or
customer)-specific assessment rate for the merchandise subject to this
review. Where the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we
calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by
aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each
importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total entered
value of the sales to each importer (or customer). See 19 CFR
351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate
is greater than de minimis, we will apply the assessment rate to the
entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the POR. See
19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
Where we do not have entered values for all U.S. sales, we
calculated a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the antidumping
duties due for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and
dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or
customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine whether the duty
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. Where
an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is zero or de
minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without
regard to antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
For the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected
for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the
cash deposit rate calculated pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the
Act. Where the weighted average ad valorem rate is zero or de minimis,
we will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to
antidumping duties. See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
For those companies for which this review has been preliminarily
rescinded,\12\ the Department intends to assess antidumping duties at
rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties
required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for
consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(2), if the review is
rescinded for these companies in the final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ These include Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.
(d.b.a. Shantou Yelin Quick-Freeze Marine Products Co., Ltd.);
Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Fuqing
Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.; and Fuqing Minhua Trading Co., Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results for shipments of subject merchandise
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the
publication date of the final results, as provided by section
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash
deposit rate will be that established in the final results of review
(except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, no cash deposit will be
required); (2) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which
have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate and, thus, are a
part of the PRC-wide entity, the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide
rate established in the final results of review; and (3) for all non-
PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the
rate applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit
requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.
[[Page 8345]]
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and this notice are in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213 and
351.221(b)(4).
Dated: February 7, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-3246 Filed 2-11-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
