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 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 (http://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 (http:// 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: http://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 http:// 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 (http://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: http://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