Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission, and Request for Revocation, In Part, of the Fifth Administrative Review, 12054-12068 [2011-4977]

Download as PDF 12054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES merchandise in question by aggregating the dumping margins calculated for all U.S. sales to each importer and dividing this amount by the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty assessment rates were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), the Department calculated importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the entered value or the estimated entered value, when entered value was not reported. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). The Department clarified its ‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment Policy Notice’’). This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Venus and Facor for which these companies did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the intermediate involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Assessment Policy Notice. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon completion of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of SS Bar from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the reviewed companies will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review, except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent and is, therefore, de minimis, the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent final results in which that manufacturer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, but was covered in a previous review or the original less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent final results for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review conducted by the Department, the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established in the LTFV investigation. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 1994). These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. Notification to Interested Parties This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protection order (‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return/ destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation. We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results of review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. Dated: February 28, 2011. Paul Piquado, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. [FR Doc. 2011–4981 Filed 3–3–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–552–802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission, and Request for Revocation, In Part, of the Fifth Administrative Review Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 The Department of Commerce ‘‘Department’’) is conducting the fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) for the period of review (‘‘POR’’) February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. As discussed below, we preliminarily determine that sales have been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis. DATES: Effective Date: Insert date of publication in the Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Pulongbarit, Paul Walker, or Jerry Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4031, (202) 482– 0413, or (202) 482–4047, respectively. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SUMMARY: Background On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘Order’’). On February 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the Order for the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 5037 (February 1, 2010). From February 26, 2010, through March 1, 2010, we received requests to conduct administrative reviews from the American Shrimp Processors Association (‘‘ASPA’’), the Louisiana Shrimp Association (‘‘LSA’’), the Domestic Producers,1 and certain Vietnamese companies. The Department also received three requests for revocation. See ‘‘Requests for 1 The Domestic Producers are the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee members: Nancy Edens; Papa Inc., Carolina Seafoods; Bosarge Boats, Inc.; Knights Seafood Inc.; Big Grapes, Inc.; Versaggi Shrimp Co.; and Craig Wallis. E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Revocation, In Part’’ section, below. On April 9, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of this administrative review. 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). On September 14, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary results by 120 days. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55740 (September 14, 2010). On April 27, 2010, the Department received a letter from Vinh Hoan Corporation indicating that it made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. On May 7, 2010, the Department received letters from Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export Joint-Stock Company, Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and its branch Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd., and Vinh Loi Import Export Company, indicating that they made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. Of the 146 companies/groups upon which we initiated an administrative review, 23 companies submitted separate-rate certifications, seven companies submitted separate-rate applications, and six companies stated that they did not export subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The Department addresses the review status of each grouping of companies below. Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined that Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export Joint-Stock Company, Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and its branch Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd., Vinh Loi Import Export Company, and Vinh Hoan Corporation made no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR of this administrative review. The Department received a no-shipment certification from the Vinh Hoan Corporation on April 27, 2010, and noshipment certifications from Gallant VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export JointStock Company, Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and its branch Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd., and Vinh Loi Import Export Company on May 7, 2010. The Department issued noshipment inquiries to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) in January 2011, informing CBP of the no-shipment certifications from Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export Joint-Stock Company, Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and its branch Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd., Vinh Loi Import Export Company, and Vinh Hoan Corporation during the POR, and asking CBP to provide any information that contradicted these certifications. We did not receive any response from CBP, thus indicating that there were no entries of subject merchandise into the United States exported by these companies. Additionally, the Department did not find any entries of subject merchandise into the United States in the CBP data on the record. Consequently, as none of these companies made exports of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, we are preliminarily rescinding this administrative review with respect to these six companies. See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3). The Department initiated administrative reviews on Camau Seafood Fty., Grobest & I–Mei Industry Vietnam, and Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory Vietnam. Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘Camimex’’), Grobest & I– Mei Industrial Vietnam Co., Ltd., aka Grobest, and Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation (‘‘Thuan Phuoc Corp.’’), respectively, submitted separate rate certifications stating these are incorrect deviations of their names which were not used during the POR, and upon which the Department should rescind. Because there is no record evidence that these names are not valid names for other companies, we are preliminarily denying the rescission requests for these company names. The Department initiated administrative reviews on Can Tho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise, Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited and Coastal Fisheries Development. Subsequently, Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (aka ‘‘Cafatex’’), Cuulong Seaproducts Company (aka ‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) and Coastal Fisheries Development PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12055 Corporation (aka ‘‘COFIDEC’’) submitted separate rate certifications. We note that COFIDEC, Cafatex and Cuulong Seapro have stated that Can Tho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise, Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited and Coastal Fisheries Development are derivations of names that they have used in the past. Because COFIDEC, Cafatex and Cuulong Seapro are exporters upon which we are conducting a review, we are including all names under which they have operated, regardless of whether a particular name was used during the POR. As a consequence, the Department finds it inappropriate to rescind on these previously used names. Respondent Selection Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise. However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters or producers if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or producers involved in the review. On April 14, 2010, the Department placed on the record data obtained from CBP with respect to the selection of respondents, inviting comments from interested parties. See Letter from the Department to Interested Parties, Regarding: 2009–2010 Administrative Review of the antidumping Duty Order of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: CBP Data for Respondent Selection. On April 22, 2010, Domestic Producers, ASPA/LSA, and certain respondents provided comments on the Department’s respondent selection methodology. Because of the large number of exporters involved in this review, the Department determined to limit the number of respondents individually examined. On July 30, 2010, the Department issued its respondent selection memorandum. Based upon section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected Camimex, Minh Phu Seafood Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively ‘‘the Minh Phu Group’’), and Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) for individual examination (hereinafter collectively ‘‘mandatory respondents’’) because they were the largest exporters, by volume, of subject merchandise during the POR. See July 30, 2010, Memorandum to James C. Doyle, through Scot T. E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 12056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices Fullerton, from Susan Pulongbarit, regarding: Selection of Respondents for the 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). The Department sent antidumping duty questionnaires to Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods on August 3, 2010. Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods submitted Section A Questionnaire Responses (‘‘AQR’’) on August 24, 2010. Camimex submitted its Section C and Section D Questionnaire Responses on September 9, and September 10, 2010, respectively. The Minh Phu Group submitted its Section C and Section D Questionnaire Responses on September 23, and September 27, 2010, respectively. Nha Trang Seafoods submitted its Section C and Section D Questionnaire Responses on September 10, and September 21, 2010, respectively. The Department issued supplemental questionnaires to Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods between September 2010 and January 2011 to which all companies responded. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Collapsing As indicated above, the Department selected Nha Trang Seafoods as one of the mandatory respondents in this investigation. In responding to the Department’s antidumping questionnaire, Nha Trang Seafoods treated itself and its affiliates, NT Seafoods Corporation (‘‘NT Seafoods’’), Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89 Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89’’), and NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company (‘‘NTSF Seafoods’’), as a single entity, i.e., collapsed NT Seafoods, Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89, and NTSF Seafoods with itself. Nha Trang Seafoods based its decision to collapse NT Seafoods, Nha Trang Seafoods— F.89, and NTSF Seafoods with itself primarily on the fact that Nha Trang Seafoods is a significant shareholder of each of its affiliates and each of these companies produced subject merchandise and exported it to the United States through Nha Trang Seafoods. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will collapse producers and treat them as a single entity where (1) Those producers are affiliated, (2) the producers have production facilities for producing similar or identical products that would not require substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure manufacturing priorities, and (3) there is a significant potential for manipulation of price or production. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 To the extent that this provision does not conflict with the Department’s application of separate rates and enforcement of the non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the Department will collapse two or more affiliated entities in a case involving an NME country if the facts of the case warrant such treatment. Furthermore, we note the factors listed in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive, and in the context of an NME investigation or administrative review, other factors unique to the relationship of business entities within the NME country may lead the Department to determine that collapsing is either warranted or unwarranted, depending on the facts of the case. See Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1342 (CIT 2003) (noting that the application of collapsing in the NME context may differ from the standard factors listed in the regulation). In summary, if there is evidence of significant potential for manipulation between or among affiliates which produce and/or export similar or identical merchandise, whether or not all such merchandise is exported to the United States, the Department may find such evidence sufficient to apply the collapsing criteria in an NME context in order to determine whether all or some of those affiliates should be treated as one entity. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 49632 (September 28, 2001); and Anshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 27 C.I.T. 1234, 1246–47 (CIT 2003). The decision of whether to collapse two or more affiliated companies is specific to the facts presented in the proceeding and is based on several considerations, including the structure of the collapsed entity, the level of control between and among affiliates, and the level of participation by each affiliate in the proceeding. Given the unique relationships which arise in NMEs between individual companies and the government, the same separate rate will be assigned to each individual company that is part of the collapsed entity only if the facts, taken as a whole, support such a finding (see ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below for further discussion). Based on the reasons explained in the Collapsing Memo, and pursuant to 19 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily collapsed NT Seafoods, Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89, NTSF Seafoods, and Nha Trang Seafoods because they are affiliated producers of the merchandise under consideration, and because there is a significant potential for manipulation of prices and production decisions between these parties. See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, through James Doyle, Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from Susan Pulongbarit, International Trade Analyst, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, Regarding Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Whether to Collapse NT Seafoods Corporation, Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89 Joint Stock Company, and NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company with Nha Trang Seaproduct Company, dated February 28, 2011 (‘‘Collapsing Memo’’). For all relevant purposes, all subsequent references in this notice to the Nha Trang Seafoods Group will be to the collapsed entity that includes NT Seafoods, Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89, and NTSF Seafoods. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data On August 20, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate value data.2 On September 14, 2010, the Department extended the comment period for surrogate country selection from September 20, 2010, to October 4, 2010, and for surrogate value comments from October 20, 2010, to November 3, 2010. On October 4, 2010, the Department received comments on surrogate country selection from Domestic Producers. On November 3, 2010, the Department received information to value factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) from ASPA/LSA, Domestic Producers and the mandatory respondents, Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Group. On November 12, 2010, the Department received a rebuttal response to Domestic Producers’ surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) submission from the mandatory respondents. The SVs placed on the record from ASPA/LSA and the mandatory respondents were obtained from sources in Bangladesh, whereas the SVs placed on the record by 2 See the Department’s Letter to All Interested Parties; Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated August 20, 2010. E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Domestic Producers were obtained from sources in the Philippines. 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,3 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 (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of 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 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 3 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 and prawns (HTS subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by the order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10 and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Requests for Revocation, In Part During the request for review period in this review, three respondents 4 requested that the Order be partially revoked with respect to them. Of the revocation companies, Camimex is a mandatory respondent, and the remaining two are separate rate respondents in this proceeding. In their request for revocation, the revocation companies argued that each has maintained three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV, and that, as a result, they are eligible for revocation under section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). We preliminarily determine not to revoke the Order with respect to the revocation companies that were not selected for individual review. The Act affords the Department broad discretion to limit the number of respondents selected for individual review when the large number of review requests makes the individual calculation of dumping 4 Camimex, Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’) and Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’) (collectively, the ‘‘revocation companies’’). PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12057 margins for all companies under review impracticable. Specifically, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act provides that, if it is not practicable for the Department to make individual dumping margin determinations because of the large number of exporters or producers involved, the Department may determine margins for a reasonable number of exporters or producers. Although the Department’s regulations set out rules and procedures for possible revocation of a dumping order, in whole or in part, based on an absence of dumping, it is silent on the applicability of this regulation when the Department has limited its examination under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department does not interpret the regulation as requiring it to conduct an individual examination of the nonselected revocation companies, or a verification of the companies’ data, where, as here, the Department determined to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters in accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B), and the non-selected revocation companies were not selected under this provision. Nothing in the regulation requires the Department to conduct an individual examination and verification when the Department has limited its review, under section 777A(c)(2). As explained above, the non-selected revocation companies were not selected for individual review because, pursuant to 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected the three largest exporters, by volume. See Respondent Selection Memo. Thus, because we have not selected the non-selected revocation companies for individual examination, we preliminarily determine not to revoke the Order with respect to these companies. However, the non-selected revocation companies filed timely separate-rate certifications, as evidence of each company’s continued eligibility for a separate rate. Thus, the Department considers the non-selected revocation companies to be cooperative respondents eligible for a separate rate. Furthermore, with respect to Camimex’s request for revocation, as a mandatory respondent in this review, we preliminarily determine not to revoke the Order. In its request for revocation, Camimex argued that, with the completion of this review, it would have maintained three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV. Camimex argued that, as a result of three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV, it is eligible for revocation under section 751(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). However, for these preliminary results, based on sales E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 12058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices and production data provided by Camimex for the fifth administrative review, the Department has calculated a (non-de minimis) positive margin for Camimex. Therefore, under 751(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), we have preliminarily determined not to revoke the Order with respect to Camimex. Verification Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), between December 13, and December 18, 2010, the Department conducted a verification of Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Pte.’s (‘‘Cam Ranh’’) separate rate status and Camimex’s sales and FOPs. See Memorandum to the File through Paul Walker, Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from Jerry Huang, International Trade Analyst, ‘‘Verification of the Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Pte. Separate Rate Response in the 2009–10 Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’’, dated March 8, 2010; Memorandum to the File through Paul Walker, Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from Jerry Huang, International Trade Analyst, ‘‘Verification of the Sales and Factors of Production Response Camimex in the 2009–10 Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’’, dated March 8, 2010. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Non-Market Economy Country Status In every case conducted by the Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam 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 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission and Request for Revocation, in Part, of the Fourth Administrative Review, 75 FR 12206 (March 15, 2010) (unchanged in final results). None of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated the NV in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries. Separate Rates In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department’s practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and thus should be assessed a single antidumping duty rate. See, e.g., Separate Rates and Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 Non-Market Economy Countries. 70 FR 17233 (April 5, 2005); see also 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, 53082 (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, 29307 (May 22, 2006) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’). It is the Department’s policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate. See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307. Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities. Id. The Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further developed in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586–87 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). However, if the Department determines that a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy (‘‘ME’’), 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 addition to the three mandatory respondents, Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods Group, the Department received separate rate applications or certifications from the following 20 companies (‘‘Separate-Rate Applicants’’): Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited; Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company; C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corporation; Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka Cafatex Corp.; Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company, aka CADOVIMEX–VIETNAM; Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company, aka Seaprimexco Vietnam; Camranh Seafoods and Branch of Cam Ranh; Can PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Tho Import Export Fishery Limited Company, aka CAFISH; CATACO Sole Member Limited Liability Company, aka CATACO; Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation, aka COFIDEX; Cuulong Seaproducts Company, aka Cuulong Seapro; Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation, aka Seaprodex Danang and its branch Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company; Grobest & I-Mei Industrial Vietnam Co., Ltd., aka Grobest; Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation, aka INCOMFISH; Kim Anh Company, Limited; Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, aka Minh Hai Jostoco; Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company, aka Seaprodex Minh Hai; Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise and its branch, Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprise, aka Ngoc Sinh Seafoods; Nhat Dhuc Co., Ltd.; Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company, aka Nha Trang Fisco; Phu Cuong Jostoco Seafood Corporation; Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp., aka Phuong Nam Co., Ltd.; Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company, aka FIMEX VN; Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company, aka STAPIMEX; Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation; UTXI Aquatic Products Corporation, aka UTXICO; and Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd., a/k/a Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. However, 90 companies did not submit either a separate-rate application or certification.5 Therefore, because these companies did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate status, they remain preliminarily included as part of the Vietnam-wide entity. Additionally, we note that some of the Separate-Rate Applicants requested separate rate status for various names which were not included on their business license.6 Because these names (1) have not been granted separate-rate status in a previous granting period, and (2) do not appear on the business license submitted to the Department, and therefore are not recognized as representing the same entity, we are preliminarily not including these names on the lists of those which separate rate status applies.7 a. Absence of De Jure Control The Department considers the following de jure criteria in determining 5 See Appendix 1. Appendix II. 7 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 (September 15, 2009) (‘‘3rd AR Final’’) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17. 6 See E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated with the individual exporter’s business and export licenses; (2) there are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Camimex’s AQR at Exhibit A– 1, the Minh Phu Group’s AQR at Exhibit 1, Nha Trang Seafoods Group’s AQR at Exhibit A–1. b. Absence of De Facto Control Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de facto absence of government control based on the following: (1) The companies set their own export prices independent of the government and without the approval of a government authority; (2) the companies have authority to negotiate VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) the companies have autonomy from the government in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) there is no restriction on any of the companies’ use of export revenue. See, e.g., Camimex’s AQR at 2–15 and Exhibit A–1, the Minh Phu Group’s AQR at 3–26 and Exhibit A–1, Nha Trang Seafoods Group’s AQR at 3–16 and Exhibit A–1. Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and the Separate-Rate Applicants have established that they qualify for a separate rate under the criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers. Separate Rate Calculation For exporters subject to administrative review that were determined to be eligible for separate rate status, but were not selected as mandatory respondents, the Department generally weight-averages the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.8 Consequently, consistent with our practice, we have preliminarily established a margin for the separate rate respondents based on the rates we calculated for the two mandatory respondents that received a calculated margin. We note that it is the Department’s practice to calculate the rate based on the average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, weighted by each company’s publicly-ranged quantity of reported U.S. transactions. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (Sept. 1, 2010) (‘‘Ball Bearings’’). Because we cannot apply our normal methodology of calculating a weightedaverage margin due to requests to protect business-proprietary information, we have calculated the separate rate based on a simple average of Camimex and the Minh Phu Group’s margins. Following these preliminary results, the Department intends to request that the mandatory respondents provide the Department with publicly8 See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in final results). PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12059 ranged quantities of their reported U.S. transactions. Vietnam-Wide Entity Upon initiation of the administrative review, we provided the opportunity for all companies upon which the review was initiated to complete either the separate-rates application or certification. The separate-rate certification and separate-rate applications were available at: http:// ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. We have preliminarily determined that 90 companies did not demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate and are properly considered part of the Vietnam-wide entity. In NME proceedings, ‘‘‘rates’ may consist of a single dumping margin applicable to all exporters and producers.’’ See 19 CFR 351.107(d). As explained above in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section, all companies within Vietnam 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 Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). In this regard, we note that no party has submitted evidence of the proceeding to demonstrate that such government influence is no longer present or that our treatment of the NME entity is otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are assigning the entity’s current rate of 25.76%, the only rate ever determined for the Vietnam-wide entity in this proceeding. Surrogate Country When the Department conducts an antidumping administrative review of 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 ME country or countries considered to be appropriate by the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 12060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more ME countries that are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally value FOP in a single country, except for labor. The sources of the surrogate factor values are discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section below and in Memorandum to the File through Paul Walker, Acting Program Manager, Office 9 from Jerry Huang, International Trade Analyst, Office 9; 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, dated February 28, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). On August 20, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter requesting comments on surrogate country selection and information pertaining to valuing FOPs. On October 4, 2010, the Department received comments from the Domestic Producers and mandatory respondents regarding surrogate country. The Domestic Producers submitted surrogate country comments suggesting that the Department select the Philippines as the surrogate country and the mandatory respondents submitted surrogate country comments suggesting that the Department select Bangladesh as the surrogate country. On November 3, 2010, ASPA/LSA, Domestic Producers, and the mandatory respondents submitted SV data. On November 12, 2010, the Department received a rebuttal response to the Domestic Producers’ SV submission from the mandatory respondents. Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of potential surrogate countries from Import Administration’s Office of Policy (‘‘OP’’).9 The OP determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Indonesia were at a comparable level of economic development to Vietnam. See Surrogate Country List. The Department considers the six countries identified by the OP in its Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally comparable in terms of economic development.’’ Id. Thus, we find that 9 See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office of Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for a Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated May 15, 2009 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Indonesia are all at an economic level of development equally comparable to that of Vietnam. We note that the Surrogate Country List is a non-exhaustive list of economically comparable countries. Moreover, we find that Egypt, Indonesia, and the Philippines are both economically comparable to Vietnam and significant producers of the subject merchandise. We also note that the record does not contain publicly available SV factor information Pakistan, India, or Sri Lanka. With regard to Indonesia, the record contains publicly available surrogate factor value information for some factors. The Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and Camimex provided data for both Indonesia and Bangladesh from a study conducted by the Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (‘‘NACA’’), an intergovernmental organization affiliated with the United Nation’s (‘‘UN’’) Food and Agricultural Organization (‘‘FAO’’). However, unlike the Bangladeshi data within the NACA study, the Indonesian shrimp data is limited and does not satisfy as many factors of the Department’s data selection criteria (e.g., broad-market average). Thus, Indonesia is not the most appropriate surrogate country for purposes of this review. With regard to the Philippines, the record contains publicly available surrogate factor value information for all FOPs. Domestic Producers provided shrimp data for the Philippines from the 2009 Fisheries Situationer, published by the Philippines Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (‘‘BAS’’). Dissimilar to the Bangladeshi data within the NACA study, the Philippine shrimp data is limited and does not satisfy as many factors of the Department’s data selection criteria. Specifically, we note that the 2009 Fisheries Situationer contains no count-size specific data. In prior administrative reviews, the Department found that count-size specific data is important in calculating accurate dumping margins, and rejected shrimp SVs with limited count sizes. See 3rd AR Final at Comment 6. Thus, the Philippines is not the most appropriate surrogate country for purposes of this review. The Department’s practice when selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are product-specific, representative of a broad-market average, publicly available, contemporaneous with the PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 POR and exclusive of taxes and duties.10 As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly available data representing a broad-market average to value SVs. Id. The Department notes that the value of the main input, headon, shell-on shrimp, is a critical FOP in the dumping calculation as it accounts for a significant percentage of NV. Moreover, the ability to value shrimp on a count-size basis is a significant consideration with respect to the data available on the record, as the subject merchandise and the raw shrimp input are both sold on a count-size specific basis. The Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study are compiled by the UN’s FAO from actual pricing records kept by Bangladeshi farmers, traders, depots, agents, and processors. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. The Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study are publicly available, represent a broad-market average, are product-specific, count-size-specific, contemporaneous and represent actual transaction prices. Regarding the Philippine data, BAS is unclear in the methodology it used to gather the average price for black tiger shrimp, whether the price is calculated from actual transaction prices, and the timeframe for data collection. Therefore, with respect to the data considerations, because the record contains shrimp values for Bangladesh that better meet our selection criteria than the Philippine source, we are selecting Bangladesh as the surrogate country. In this regard, given the above-cited facts, we find that the information on the record shows that Bangladesh is an appropriate surrogate country because Bangladesh is at a similar level of economic development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant producer of comparable merchandise, and has reliable, publicly available data for surrogate valuation purposes. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results.11 10 See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2A. 11 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 E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices Date of Sale Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods Group reported the invoice date as the date of sale because they claim that, for their U.S. sales of subject merchandise made during the POR, the material terms of sale were established on the invoice date. The Department preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the most appropriate date to use as Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods Group’s date of sale, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i).12 Fair Value Comparisons To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp to the United States by Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods Group were made at less-than-fair-value, the Department compared the export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections below. U.S. Price A. Export Price jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Export Price In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department calculated the EP for sales to the United States from Camimex, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and some of the Minh Phu Group’s sales, because the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of importation. The Department calculated EP based on the price to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we deducted from the starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight and brokerage and handling. Each of these services was either provided by an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, we based the deduction of these movement charges on SVs. Additionally, for international freight provided by an ME provider and paid in an ME currency, 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. 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. 12 See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 we used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. See Surrogate Value Memorandum for details regarding the SVs for movement expenses. B. Constructed Export Price For the majority of the Minh Phu Group’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 the Vietnam-based company 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 adjustments, 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 Vietnam service providers or paid for in Vietnamese Dong, we valued these services using SVs (see ‘‘Factors of Production’’ section below for further discussion). For those expenses that were provided by an ME provider and paid for in ME 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 all of the mandatory respondents, see Memorandum to the File, from Paul Walker, Acting Program Manager, Office 9, 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: MPG Program Analysis for the Preliminary Determination, dated February 28, 2011. Normal Value Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall determine the NV using an FOPs 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 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12061 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 FOPs reported by respondents for the POR, except as noted above. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-consumption rates by publicly available Bangladeshi SVs. In selecting the SVs, 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. Specifically, we added to Bangladeshi import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of production where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (‘‘CAFC’’) decision in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we calculated freight based on the reported distance from the supplier to the factory. In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source data may be subsidized.13 In this regard, the Department has previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have determined that these countries maintain broadly available, nonindustry specific export subsidies.14 Based on the existence of these subsidy programs that were generally available 13 See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA 1988’’) at 590. 14 See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; see Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; see Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 23. E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 12062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have benefitted from these subsidies. Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.15 Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded from the average value, because the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an NME country or a country with general export subsidies. For further detail, see Surrogate Value Memorandum. Therefore, based on the information currently available, we have not used prices from these countries either in calculating the Bangladeshi importbased SVs or in calculating ME input values. In instances where an ME input was obtained solely from suppliers located in these countries, we used Bangladeshi import-based SVs to value the input. The Department notes that Domestic Producers submitted Philippine shrimp values and the mandatory respondents submitted Bangladeshi shrimp values with which to value the main input, raw shrimp. Domestic Producers submitted Philippine shrimp values obtained from the January–December 2009 Fisheries Situationer published by the Philippines Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. As stated above, the Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, Grobest, and Camimex submitted data contained in the NACA study compiled by the UN’s FAO. As stated above, the Department’s practice when selecting the best available information for valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are product-specific, representative of a broad-market average, publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and duties. Domestic Producers’ submitted shrimp value from the Fisheries Situationer, although publicly available, is not count-size specific. As noted above, the shrimp values within the NACA study are compiled from actual pricing records kept by Bangladeshi farmers, traders, depots, agents, and processors, are count-specific, and publicly available. 15 See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s Republic of China; Final Results of 1998–1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 Therefore, to value the main input, head-on, shell-on shrimp, the Department used data contained in the NACA study.16 The Department used United Nations ComTrade Statistics, provided by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs’ Statistics Division, as its primary source of Bangladeshi SV data.17 The data represents cumulative values for the calendar year 2007, for inputs classified by the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System number. For each input value, we used the average value per unit for that input imported into Bangladesh from all countries that the Department has not previously determined to be NME countries. Import statistics from countries that the Department has determined to be countries which subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India) and imports from unspecified countries also were excluded in the calculation of the average value. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Lastly, the Department has also excluded imports from Bangladesh into Bangladesh because there is no evidence on the record regarding what these data represent (e.g., re-importations, another category of unspecified imports, or the result of an error in reporting). Thus, these data do not represent the best available information upon which to rely for valuation purposes. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. It is the Department’s practice to calculate price index adjustors to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, SVs that are not contemporaneous with the POR using the wholesale price index (‘‘WPI’’) for the subject country. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). However, in this case, a WPI was not available for Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly available 16 For a detailed explanation of the Department’s valuation of shrimp, see Surrogate Value Memorandum. 17 This can be accessed online at: http:// www.unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/. PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 information contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors could not be obtained, SVs were adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (‘‘CPI’’) rate for Bangladesh, or the WPI for India or Indonesia (for certain SVs where Bangladeshi data could not be obtained), as published in the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate corresponding to the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily exchange rates posted on the Import Administration Web site (http:// www.trade.gov/ia/). See Surrogate Value Memorandum. The Department used UN ComTrade to value the raw material and packing material inputs that Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods Group used to produce the merchandise under review during the POR, except where listed below. For a detailed description of all SVs for respondents, see Surrogate Value Memorandum. On May 14, 2010, the CAFC in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), found that the ‘‘{regression-based} 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 Vietnam 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 Vietnam, and significant producers of comparable merchandise. A full description of the industry-specific wage rate calculation methodology is provided in the Surrogate Value Memorandum. The Department calculated a simple average industry-specific wage rate of $1.09 for these preliminary results. Specifically, for this review, the Department has E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 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 Vietnam 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 SV 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 Vietnam and are significant producers of comparable merchandise: Egypt, Indonesia, and the Philippines. For further information on the calculation of the wage rate, see Surrogate Value Memorandum. We valued electricity using data from the Bangladesh Ministry of Power, Energy, & Mineral Resources. This information was published on their Power Division’s website. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We valued water using 2007 data from the Asian Development Bank. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. Id. We valued diesel using data published by the World Bank in ‘‘Bangladesh: Transport at a Glance,’’ published in June 2006. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. Id. To value truck freight and river freight, we used data published in 2008 Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. Id. To value marine insurance, the Department used rates from RJG Consultants. These rates are for sea freight from the Far East Region. Id. We valued warehouse/cold storage rates published in an article on tropicalseeds.com in July 1997. We inflated the value using the POR average CPI rate. Id. We valued containerization using information previously available on the Import Administration website. We inflated the value using the POR average WPI rate. Id. The Department valued terminal lift charges using data from the Web sites http://www.oocl.com/bangladesh/eng/ localinformation/localsurcharges/ ?site=bangladesh&lang=eng and http:// www.srinternational.com/ standard_containers.htm. We inflated the value using the POR average WPI rate. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. We valued the by-product using shell scrap values from the Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, through Maureen Flannery, Program Manager, Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, from Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu, Case Analysts, subject: Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Administrative Review 9/1/00–8/31/00 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00–8/31/ 01 and 9/1/00–10/15/01. We inflated the value using the POR average WPI rate. Id. To value factory overhead, selling, general, and administrative expenses, and profit, we used the simple average of the 2009–2010 financial statement of Apex Foods Limited and the 2008–2009 financial statement of Gemini Seafood Limited, both of which are Bangladeshi shrimp processors. See Surrogate Value Memorandum, at Exhibit 8. Currency Conversion Where necessary, the Department 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 Review The Department preliminarily determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist: Simple average margin (percent) Exporter jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Camimex aka. Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 aka. Camau Seafood Factory No. 5 aka. Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Frozen Factory No. 4. Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Camimex aka. Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 aka. Camau Seafood Factory No. 5. Minh Minh Minh Minh Minh Minh Minh Minh Minh Minh Minh Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’) aka. Import & Export aka. Import Export Corp. (CAMIMEX–FAC 25) aka. 1.36 Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’) aka. Phu Group: Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., aka. Phat Seafood aka. Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) aka. Phu Seafood Corp. aka. Phu Seafood Corporation aka. Qui Seafood aka. Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. Phu Seafood Pte aka. Phat aka. Qui. Nha Trang Seafoods Group: Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) aka. Nha Trang Seafoods aka. Nha Trang Seaproduct Company Nha Trang Seafoods aka. NT Seafoods Corporation (‘‘NT Seafoods’’). VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 12063 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 1.67 de minimis Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 12064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices Simple average margin (percent) Exporter Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89 Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89’’). aka. NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company (‘‘NTSF Seafoods’’). Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited (‘‘Amanda Foods’’) 1.52 Bac Bac Bac Bac Bac Bac 1.52 Lieu Lieu Lieu Lieu Lieu Lieu Fisheries Fisheries Fisheries Fisheries Fisheries Fis. Company Limited, aka. Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’) aka. Joint Stock Company aka. Limited Company aka. Company Limited aka. C.P. Vietnam Livestock Company Limited aka. C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corporation (‘‘C.P. Vietnam’’) aka. C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corporation. 1.52 Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX–VIETNAM’’) aka. Cadovimex-Vietnam aka. Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (‘‘Cadovimex’’) aka. Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex) aka. Cai Doi Vam Seafood aka. Cai Doi Vam Seafood Im-Ex Company (Cadovimex) aka. Cai Doi Vam Seafood Processing Factory aka. Caidoivam Seafood Company (Cadovimex) aka. Caidoivam Seafood Im-Ex Co. 1.52 1.52 Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) aka. Camranh Seafoods. 1.52 Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) aka. Can Tho Agricultural Products aka. CATACO aka. Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Imex Company. 1.52 Can Tho Import Export Fishery Limited Company (‘‘CAFISH’’). 1.52 Coastal Fishery Development aka. Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (‘‘Cofidec’’) aka. Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) aka. COFIDEC aka. Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation aka. Coastal Fisheries Development Co. aka. Coastal Fisheries Development Corp. jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘Cafatex Corp.’’) aka. Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘CAFATEX CORP.’’) aka. Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex), aka. Cafatex, aka. Cafatex Vietnam, aka. Xi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat Kau Cantho, aka. Cas, aka. Cas Branch, aka. Cafatex Saigon, aka. Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka. Cafatex Corporation, aka. Taydo Seafood Enterprise aka. Cafatex Corp. aka. Cafatex Corporation. 1.52 Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka. Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) aka. Cuulong Seapro aka. Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) aka. Cuu Long Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka. Cuu Long Seaproducts Company aka. Cuu Long Seapro aka. Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka. Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro) aka. Cuulong Seapro aka. Cuulong Seaproduct Company. 1.52 VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12065 Simple average margin (percent) Exporter Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) aka. Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation aka. Danang Seaproduct Import-Export Corporation aka. Danang Seaproducts Import Export aka. Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company aka. Seaprodex Danang aka. Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company aka. Tho Quang aka. Tho Quang Co. 1.52 Grobest & I–Mei Industrial Vietnam, aka. Grobest, aka. Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’). 1.52 Investment Commerce Fisheries Incomfish aka. Investment Commerce Fisheries Incomfish Corp., aka. Incomfish Corporation aka. Investment Commerce Fisheries Investment Commerce Fisheries Incomfish Corporation. 1.52 Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’) aka. Corp., aka. aka. Corporation aka. Kim Anh Company Limited (‘‘Kim Anh’’). 1.52 Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company aka .............................................................................................. Minh Hai Jostoco aka. Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’) aka. Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’) aka. Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company aka. Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company aka. Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Co., aka. Minh-Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company. Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’) aka. Sea Minh Hai aka. Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company aka. Seaprodex Minh Hai aka. Seaprodex Min Hai aka. Seaprodex Minh Hai (Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods Processing Co.) aka. Seaprodex Minh Hai Factory aka. Seaprodex Minh Hai Factory No. 69 aka. Seaprodex Minh Hai Workshop 1 aka. Seaprodex Minh Hai-Factory No. 78 aka. Workshop I Seaprodex Minh Hai. 1.52 1.52 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (‘‘Seaprimex Co’’) aka. Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’) aka. Seaprimexco Vietnam aka. Seaprimexco aka. Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Seaprimexco’’) aka. Minh Hai Seaproducts Import Export Corporation aka. Seaprimexco aka. Minh Hai Seaproducts Co Ltd. (Seaprimexco) aka. Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Seaprimexco Vietnam’’). 1.52 Ngoc Ngoc Ngoc Ngoc Ngoc Ngoc Ngoc Ngoc Ngoc 1.52 Sinh Sinh Sinh Sinh Sinh Sinh Sinh Sinh Sinh Private Enterprise aka. Seafoods aka. Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprise aka. Fisheries aka. Private Enterprises aka. Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprises aka. aka. Seafood Processing Company aka. Seafoods (Private Enterprise). Nhat Duc Co., Ltd. Nhat Duc Co., Ltd. (‘‘Nhat Duc’’). 1.52 Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) aka. Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company aka. Nhatrang Fisheries Joint Stock Company aka. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 12066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices Simple average margin (percent) Exporter Nha Trang Fisco aka. Nhatrang Fisco aka. Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) aka. Nha Trang Fisheries, Joint Stock aka. Nha Trang Fishereies Joint Stock Company (Nha Trang Fisco). 1.52 Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd. aka. Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import Export Company Limited aka. Phu Cuong Jostoco Corp. 1.52 Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’) aka. Western Seafood Processing and Exporting Factory (‘‘Western Seafood’’) aka. Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp. aka. Phuong Nam Co. Ltd. 1.52 Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’) aka. Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company aka. Fimex VN aka. Sao Ta Seafood Factory aka. Saota Seafood Factory. 1.52 Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’) aka. Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Stapimex’’) aka. Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company aka. Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company aka. Stapimex aka. Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company-(Stapimex) aka. Stapimex Soc Trans Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company aka. Stapmex. 1.52 Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation aka. Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 aka. Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory aka. My Son Seafoods Factory aka. Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory Vietnam. 1.52 UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company aka. UT XI Aquatic Products Processing Company aka. UT–XI Aquatic Products Processing Company aka. UTXI aka. UTXI Co. Ltd., aka. Khanh Loi Seafood Factory aka. Hoang Phuong Seafood Factory aka. UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation (‘‘UTXICO’’) aka. UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation aka. UTXICO. 1.52 Viet Foods Co., Ltd. aka. Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd. 1.52 Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. aka. Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fish One’’) aka. Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (‘‘Vietnam Fish One Co. Ltd.’’). 1.52 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES Vietnam-wide Entity. 25.76 The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). As noted above, 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 the FOPs within 20 days after the date of publication of VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 SV information pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine From the People’s Republic of China: Final E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Room 1117, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) The party’s name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the respective case briefs. Case briefs from interested parties may be submitted not later than 30 days of the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, will be due five days later, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). The Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 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), we calculated exporter/importer (or customer)-specific assessment rates 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 importers’/customers’ entries VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 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). As noted above, consistent with Ball Bearings, for the final results, for the companies receiving a separate rate that were not selected for individual review, average of the margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, weighted by each company’s publicly-ranged quantity of reported U.S. transactions, excluding any zero and de minimis rates, and rates based entirely upon facts available, pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. Cash Deposit Requirements The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed above, the cash deposit rate will be established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required for that company); (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the Vietnam-wide rate of 25.76 percent; and (4) for all non-Vietnamese exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnamese exporters that supplied that non-Vietnamese exporter. These deposit PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 12067 requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice. Notification to Importers This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary’s presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties. This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). Dated: February 28, 2011. Paul Piquado, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration. Appendix I • Agrex Saigon • APL Logistics • Aquatic Products Trading Company • CP Livestock • C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co., Ltd. • C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd • Camau Seafood Fty. • Ca Mau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation, or Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 (‘‘CAMIMEX’’) and/or Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’) • Ca Mau Seaproducts Exploitation and Service Corporation (‘‘SES’’) • Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Process Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX’’) • Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Process Joint Stock Company (‘‘Cadovimex-Vietnam’’) • Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Process Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX’’) and/or Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Process Joint Stock Company (‘‘Cadovimex-Vietnam) • Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) • Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) and/or Camranh Seafoods • Camranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Pte. (also known as Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enteprise Pte., Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company, Cam Ranh Seafoods, and Camranh Seafoods) and its branch factory, Branch of Camranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Pte.— Quang Ninh Export Aquatic Products E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES 12068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices Processing Factory (also known as Quang Ninh Seaproducts Factory) (collectively, ‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) • Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) • Can Tho Agricultural Products • Can Tho Agricultural and animal Product Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) and/or Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) • Can Tho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex) • Can Tho Seafood Exports • Cautre Export Goods Processing Joint Stock Company • Coastal Fishery Development • D & N Foods Processing Danang • Daewoo Apparel Vietnam • Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang) and/ or Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (and its affiliates) (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) • Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (and its affiliate, Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company) (collectively ‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) • Foodstuff Factory Vietnam • Frozen Seafoods Fty • Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 and/or Frozen Seafoods Fty • Gallant Ocean Vietnam • Grobest & I–Mei Industry Vietnam • Hai Thanh Food Company Ltd. • Hai Viet Corporation (‘‘HAVICO’’) • Hai Vuong Co., Ltd. • Hanoi Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Hanoi’’) • Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct Fty • Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’) and/or Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘INCOMFISH’’) • Kaier Furniture (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. • Khanh Loi Production and Trading Co. • Kien Gan Seaproduct Import and Export Company (‘‘KISIMEX’’) • Kien Long Seafoods • Kim Anh Co., Ltd. • Kim Do Wood Production • Lode Star Co., Ltd. • Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’) and/or Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’) • Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’) and/or Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Sea Minh Hai’’) • Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co) • Minh Hai Joint Stock Processing Co. • Minh Phat Seafood and/or Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd. VerDate Mar<15>2010 19:16 Mar 03, 2011 Jkt 223001 • Minh Phu Seafood Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively ‘‘Minh Phu Group’’) • Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) and/or Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively ‘‘Minh Phu Group’’) • Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) and/or Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang FISCO’’) • Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) • Nyd Co., Ltd. • Orange Fashion • Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd. • Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & Import-Export Co., Ltd. (aka Phu Cuong Jostoco Seafood Corporation, Phu Cuong Jostoco Corp. or Phu Cuong Seafood Processing Import-Export Company Limited) • Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd. and/or Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & ImportExport Co., Ltd. • Phu Thuan Corporation • Phuong Nam Company, Ltd. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’) • Phuong Nam Seafood Co., Ltd. • S.R.V. Freight Services Co., Ltd. • Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’) • Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’) and/or Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘FIMEX’’) • Seaprodex Minh Hai Factory • Seaprodex Minh Hai Workshop 1 • Sea Product • Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’) • Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’) and/or Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import-Export Company (‘‘STAPIMEX’’) • Song Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd. • Song Huong ASC Joint Stock Company • Sustainable Seafood • Tan Thanh Loi Frozen Food Co., Ltd. • Tecapro Co. (Tacbest Factory) • Thanh Hung Co., Ltd. • Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation and its separate factories Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32, Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory, and My Son Seafoods Factory (collectively ‘‘Thuan Phuoc Corp.’’) • Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation and/or Thuan Phuoc PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 9990 Seafoods and Trading Corporation and/ or Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation (and its affiliates) • Tien Tien Garment Joint Stock Company • Tithi Co., Ltd. • Vien Thang Pte Co., Ltd. • Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. a/k/a Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fish One’’) • Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. • Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One) • Viet Nhan Company • Vietnam Northern Viking Technology Co., Ltd. • Vilfood Co • Vina Atm Co., Ltd. • Vinatex Danang • Vinh An Co., Ltd • Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd Appendix II • Bac Lieu Fisheries • Bac Lieu Fisheries Company • Bac Lieu Seaproducts Processing Factory • Cadovimex Seafood • Cadovimex Seafood Imp-Exp & Proc. Joint-Stock Co. • Camau Seafood, Factory No. 4 • Cantho Imp Expo Fishery Ltd. • Danang Sea Products Import Export Corporation • Frozen Seafoods Factory • Hoang Phuong Seafood Co. • Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (Minh Hai—Jostoco) • Minh Hai Joint Stock Processing Co. • Minh Hai Seaproducts Co Ltd. (Seaprimexco) • Minh Hai Seaproducts Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co) • Minh Phat Co Ltd. • Minh Qui Seafoods Co. Ltd. • Minh-Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company • Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock • Phuong Nam Co. • Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Export Import Company • Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company—(Stapi Mex) • Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (Stapimex) • Soc-Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (Stapmix) • Thuan Phuoc • Thuan Phuoc Seafood and Trading Company • UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Co [FR Doc. 2011–4977 Filed 3–3–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P E:\FR\FM\04MRN1.SGM 04MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12054-12068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4977]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-802]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission, and Request for 
Revocation, In Part, of the Fifth Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce ``Department'') is conducting the 
fifth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain 
frozen warmwater shrimp (``shrimp'') from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam (``Vietnam'') for the period of review (``POR'') February 1, 
2009, through January 31, 2010. As discussed below, we preliminarily 
determine that sales have been made below normal value (``NV''). If 
these preliminary results are adopted in our final results of review, 
we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') to assess 
antidumping duties on entries of subject merchandise during the POR for 
which the importer-specific assessment rates are above de minimis.

DATES: Effective Date: Insert date of publication in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Pulongbarit, Paul Walker, or 
Jerry Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street 
and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 
482-4031, (202) 482-0413, or (202) 482-4047, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On February 1, 2005, the Department published in the Federal 
Register the antidumping duty order on frozen warmwater shrimp from 
Vietnam. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 
2005) (``Order''). On February 1, 2010, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative 
review of the Order for the period February 1, 2009, through January 
31, 2010. See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 
75 FR 5037 (February 1, 2010).
    From February 26, 2010, through March 1, 2010, we received requests 
to conduct administrative reviews from the American Shrimp Processors 
Association (``ASPA''), the Louisiana Shrimp Association (``LSA''), the 
Domestic Producers,\1\ and certain Vietnamese companies. The Department 
also received three requests for revocation. See ``Requests for

[[Page 12055]]

Revocation, In Part'' section, below. On April 9, 2010, the Department 
published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of this 
administrative review. 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Domestic Producers are the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action 
Committee members: Nancy Edens; Papa Inc., Carolina Seafoods; 
Bosarge Boats, Inc.; Knights Seafood Inc.; Big Grapes, Inc.; 
Versaggi Shrimp Co.; and Craig Wallis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 14, 2010, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a notice extending the time period for issuing the preliminary 
results by 120 days. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 55740 (September 14, 
2010).
    On April 27, 2010, the Department received a letter from Vinh Hoan 
Corporation indicating that it made no shipments of subject merchandise 
during the POR. On May 7, 2010, the Department received letters from 
Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien Cuong Seafood Processing Import 
Export Joint-Stock Company, Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading 
Import and Export Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and its branch 
Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd., and Vinh Loi Import Export 
Company, indicating that they made no shipments of subject merchandise 
during the POR.
    Of the 146 companies/groups upon which we initiated an 
administrative review, 23 companies submitted separate-rate 
certifications, seven companies submitted separate-rate applications, 
and six companies stated that they did not export subject merchandise 
to the United States during the POR. The Department addresses the 
review status of each grouping of companies below.

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Administrative Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we have preliminarily determined 
that Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien Cuong Seafood Processing 
Import Export Joint-Stock Company, Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing 
Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and its 
branch Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd., Vinh Loi Import 
Export Company, and Vinh Hoan Corporation made no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR of this administrative review. The 
Department received a no-shipment certification from the Vinh Hoan 
Corporation on April 27, 2010, and no-shipment certifications from 
Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien Cuong Seafood Processing Import 
Export Joint-Stock Company, Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading 
Import and Export Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and its branch 
Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd., and Vinh Loi Import Export 
Company on May 7, 2010. The Department issued no-shipment inquiries to 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') in January 2011, informing 
CBP of the no-shipment certifications from Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., 
Ltd., Kien Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export Joint-Stock Company, 
Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading Import and Export Co., Ltd., 
Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and its branch Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export 
Company Ltd., Vinh Loi Import Export Company, and Vinh Hoan Corporation 
during the POR, and asking CBP to provide any information that 
contradicted these certifications. We did not receive any response from 
CBP, thus indicating that there were no entries of subject merchandise 
into the United States exported by these companies. Additionally, the 
Department did not find any entries of subject merchandise into the 
United States in the CBP data on the record. Consequently, as none of 
these companies made exports of subject merchandise to the United 
States during the POR, we are preliminarily rescinding this 
administrative review with respect to these six companies. See 19 CFR 
351.213(d)(3).
    The Department initiated administrative reviews on Camau Seafood 
Fty., Grobest & I-Mei Industry Vietnam, and Seafoods and Foodstuff 
Factory Vietnam. Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export 
Corporation (``Camimex''), Grobest & I-Mei Industrial Vietnam Co., 
Ltd., aka Grobest, and Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation 
(``Thuan Phuoc Corp.''), respectively, submitted separate rate 
certifications stating these are incorrect deviations of their names 
which were not used during the POR, and upon which the Department 
should rescind. Because there is no record evidence that these names 
are not valid names for other companies, we are preliminarily denying 
the rescission requests for these company names.
    The Department initiated administrative reviews on Can Tho Animal 
Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise, Cuu Long Seaproducts 
Limited and Coastal Fisheries Development. Subsequently, Cafatex 
Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (aka ``Cafatex''), Cuulong Seaproducts 
Company (aka ``Cuulong Seapro'') and Coastal Fisheries Development 
Corporation (aka ``COFIDEC'') submitted separate rate certifications. 
We note that COFIDEC, Cafatex and Cuulong Seapro have stated that Can 
Tho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise, Cuu Long 
Seaproducts Limited and Coastal Fisheries Development are derivations 
of names that they have used in the past. Because COFIDEC, Cafatex and 
Cuulong Seapro are exporters upon which we are conducting a review, we 
are including all names under which they have operated, regardless of 
whether a particular name was used during the POR. As a consequence, 
the Department finds it inappropriate to rescind on these previously 
used names.

Respondent Selection

    Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``the 
Act'') directs the Department to calculate individual dumping margins 
for each known exporter or producer of the subject merchandise. 
However, section 777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the Department discretion 
to limit its examination to a reasonable number of exporters or 
producers if it is not practicable to examine all exporters or 
producers involved in the review.
    On April 14, 2010, the Department placed on the record data 
obtained from CBP with respect to the selection of respondents, 
inviting comments from interested parties. See Letter from the 
Department to Interested Parties, Regarding: 2009-2010 Administrative 
Review of the antidumping Duty Order of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: CBP Data for Respondent 
Selection. On April 22, 2010, Domestic Producers, ASPA/LSA, and certain 
respondents provided comments on the Department's respondent selection 
methodology.
    Because of the large number of exporters involved in this review, 
the Department determined to limit the number of respondents 
individually examined. On July 30, 2010, the Department issued its 
respondent selection memorandum. Based upon section 777A(c)(2)(B) of 
the Act, the Department selected Camimex, Minh Phu Seafood Corporation 
(and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., and Minh Phat Seafood 
Co., Ltd.) (collectively ``the Minh Phu Group''), and Nha Trang 
Seaproduct Company (``Nha Trang Seafoods'') for individual examination 
(hereinafter collectively ``mandatory respondents'') because they were 
the largest exporters, by volume, of subject merchandise during the 
POR. See July 30, 2010, Memorandum to James C. Doyle, through Scot T.

[[Page 12056]]

Fullerton, from Susan Pulongbarit, regarding: Selection of Respondents 
for the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Respondent 
Selection Memo''). The Department sent antidumping duty questionnaires 
to Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods on August 3, 
2010.
    Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods submitted 
Section A Questionnaire Responses (``AQR'') on August 24, 2010. Camimex 
submitted its Section C and Section D Questionnaire Responses on 
September 9, and September 10, 2010, respectively. The Minh Phu Group 
submitted its Section C and Section D Questionnaire Responses on 
September 23, and September 27, 2010, respectively. Nha Trang Seafoods 
submitted its Section C and Section D Questionnaire Responses on 
September 10, and September 21, 2010, respectively. The Department 
issued supplemental questionnaires to Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and 
Nha Trang Seafoods between September 2010 and January 2011 to which all 
companies responded.

Collapsing

    As indicated above, the Department selected Nha Trang Seafoods as 
one of the mandatory respondents in this investigation. In responding 
to the Department's antidumping questionnaire, Nha Trang Seafoods 
treated itself and its affiliates, NT Seafoods Corporation (``NT 
Seafoods''), Nha Trang Seafoods--F.89 Joint Stock Company (``Nha Trang 
Seafoods--F.89''), and NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company (``NTSF 
Seafoods''), as a single entity, i.e., collapsed NT Seafoods, Nha Trang 
Seafoods--F.89, and NTSF Seafoods with itself. Nha Trang Seafoods based 
its decision to collapse NT Seafoods, Nha Trang Seafoods--F.89, and 
NTSF Seafoods with itself primarily on the fact that Nha Trang Seafoods 
is a significant shareholder of each of its affiliates and each of 
these companies produced subject merchandise and exported it to the 
United States through Nha Trang Seafoods.
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the Department will collapse 
producers and treat them as a single entity where (1) Those producers 
are affiliated, (2) the producers have production facilities for 
producing similar or identical products that would not require 
substantial retooling of either facility in order to restructure 
manufacturing priorities, and (3) there is a significant potential for 
manipulation of price or production.
    To the extent that this provision does not conflict with the 
Department's application of separate rates and enforcement of the non-
market economy (``NME'') provision, section 773(c) of the Act, the 
Department will collapse two or more affiliated entities in a case 
involving an NME country if the facts of the case warrant such 
treatment. Furthermore, we note the factors listed in 19 CFR 
351.401(f)(2) are not exhaustive, and in the context of an NME 
investigation or administrative review, other factors unique to the 
relationship of business entities within the NME country may lead the 
Department to determine that collapsing is either warranted or 
unwarranted, depending on the facts of the case. See Hontex 
Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1342 (CIT 
2003) (noting that the application of collapsing in the NME context may 
differ from the standard factors listed in the regulation).
    In summary, if there is evidence of significant potential for 
manipulation between or among affiliates which produce and/or export 
similar or identical merchandise, whether or not all such merchandise 
is exported to the United States, the Department may find such evidence 
sufficient to apply the collapsing criteria in an NME context in order 
to determine whether all or some of those affiliates should be treated 
as one entity. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From the 
People's Republic of China, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001); Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 
Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 
49632 (September 28, 2001); and Anshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. v. United 
States, 27 C.I.T. 1234, 1246-47 (CIT 2003).
    The decision of whether to collapse two or more affiliated 
companies is specific to the facts presented in the proceeding and is 
based on several considerations, including the structure of the 
collapsed entity, the level of control between and among affiliates, 
and the level of participation by each affiliate in the proceeding. 
Given the unique relationships which arise in NMEs between individual 
companies and the government, the same separate rate will be assigned 
to each individual company that is part of the collapsed entity only if 
the facts, taken as a whole, support such a finding (see ``Separate 
Rates'' section below for further discussion).
    Based on the reasons explained in the Collapsing Memo, and pursuant 
to 19 CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily collapsed NT Seafoods, Nha 
Trang Seafoods--F.89, NTSF Seafoods, and Nha Trang Seafoods because 
they are affiliated producers of the merchandise under consideration, 
and because there is a significant potential for manipulation of prices 
and production decisions between these parties. See Memorandum to 
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Operations, through James Doyle, Director, Office 
9, AD/CVD Operations, from Susan Pulongbarit, International Trade 
Analyst, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, Regarding Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Whether to Collapse NT Seafoods 
Corporation, Nha Trang Seafoods--F.89 Joint Stock Company, and NTSF 
Seafoods Joint Stock Company with Nha Trang Seaproduct Company, dated 
February 28, 2011 (``Collapsing Memo''). For all relevant purposes, all 
subsequent references in this notice to the Nha Trang Seafoods Group 
will be to the collapsed entity that includes NT Seafoods, Nha Trang 
Seafoods--F.89, and NTSF Seafoods.

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Data

    On August 20, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
inviting comments on surrogate country selection and surrogate value 
data.\2\ On September 14, 2010, the Department extended the comment 
period for surrogate country selection from September 20, 2010, to 
October 4, 2010, and for surrogate value comments from October 20, 
2010, to November 3, 2010. On October 4, 2010, the Department received 
comments on surrogate country selection from Domestic Producers. On 
November 3, 2010, the Department received information to value factors 
of production (``FOP'') from ASPA/LSA, Domestic Producers and the 
mandatory respondents, Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang 
Group. On November 12, 2010, the Department received a rebuttal 
response to Domestic Producers' surrogate value (``SV'') submission 
from the mandatory respondents. The SVs placed on the record from ASPA/
LSA and the mandatory respondents were obtained from sources in 
Bangladesh, whereas the SVs placed on the record by

[[Page 12057]]

Domestic Producers were obtained from sources in the Philippines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the Department's Letter to All Interested Parties; 
Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, dated August 20, 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,\3\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise 
processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``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 (``HTSUS''), are products which are 
processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which 
are sold in any count size.
    The products described above may be processed from any species of 
warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally 
classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 
examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but 
are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 
(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river 
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), 
redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp 
(Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern 
rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp 
(Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white 
shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 
indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of 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 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified 
in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, 
in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-
on or peeled (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 
shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5) 
dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS 
subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted shrimp; and (8) certain 
battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is 
produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to 
which a ``dusting'' layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 
purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp 
flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-
shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 
percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to 
being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately 
after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-
based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of 
dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or 
milk, and par-fried.
    The products covered by the order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 
1605.20.10.10 and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, 
but rather the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Requests for Revocation, In Part

    During the request for review period in this review, three 
respondents \4\ requested that the Order be partially revoked with 
respect to them. Of the revocation companies, Camimex is a mandatory 
respondent, and the remaining two are separate rate respondents in this 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Camimex, Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. 
(``Grobest'') and Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp. (``Phuong Nam'') 
(collectively, the ``revocation companies'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their request for revocation, the revocation companies argued 
that each has maintained three consecutive years of sales at not less 
than NV, and that, as a result, they are eligible for revocation under 
section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2).
    We preliminarily determine not to revoke the Order with respect to 
the revocation companies that were not selected for individual review. 
The Act affords the Department broad discretion to limit the number of 
respondents selected for individual review when the large number of 
review requests makes the individual calculation of dumping margins for 
all companies under review impracticable. Specifically, section 
777A(c)(2) of the Act provides that, if it is not practicable for the 
Department to make individual dumping margin determinations because of 
the large number of exporters or producers involved, the Department may 
determine margins for a reasonable number of exporters or producers. 
Although the Department's regulations set out rules and procedures for 
possible revocation of a dumping order, in whole or in part, based on 
an absence of dumping, it is silent on the applicability of this 
regulation when the Department has limited its examination under 
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The Department does not interpret the 
regulation as requiring it to conduct an individual examination of the 
non-selected revocation companies, or a verification of the companies' 
data, where, as here, the Department determined to limit its 
examination to a reasonable number of exporters in accordance with 
section 777A(c)(2)(B), and the non-selected revocation companies were 
not selected under this provision. Nothing in the regulation requires 
the Department to conduct an individual examination and verification 
when the Department has limited its review, under section 777A(c)(2). 
As explained above, the non-selected revocation companies were not 
selected for individual review because, pursuant to 777A(c)(2)(B) of 
the Act, the Department selected the three largest exporters, by 
volume. See Respondent Selection Memo. Thus, because we have not 
selected the non-selected revocation companies for individual 
examination, we preliminarily determine not to revoke the Order with 
respect to these companies.
    However, the non-selected revocation companies filed timely 
separate-rate certifications, as evidence of each company's continued 
eligibility for a separate rate. Thus, the Department considers the 
non-selected revocation companies to be cooperative respondents 
eligible for a separate rate.
    Furthermore, with respect to Camimex's request for revocation, as a 
mandatory respondent in this review, we preliminarily determine not to 
revoke the Order. In its request for revocation, Camimex argued that, 
with the completion of this review, it would have maintained three 
consecutive years of sales at not less than NV. Camimex argued that, as 
a result of three consecutive years of sales at not less than NV, it is 
eligible for revocation under section 751(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2). However, for these preliminary results, based on sales

[[Page 12058]]

and production data provided by Camimex for the fifth administrative 
review, the Department has calculated a (non-de minimis) positive 
margin for Camimex. Therefore, under 751(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.222(b)(2), we have preliminarily determined not to revoke the Order 
with respect to Camimex.

Verification

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), between December 13, and 
December 18, 2010, the Department conducted a verification of Cam Ranh 
Seafoods Processing Enterprise Pte.'s (``Cam Ranh'') separate rate 
status and Camimex's sales and FOPs. See Memorandum to the File through 
Paul Walker, Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from Jerry Huang, 
International Trade Analyst, ``Verification of the Cam Ranh Seafoods 
Processing Enterprise Pte. Separate Rate Response in the 2009-10 
Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam'', dated March 8, 2010; Memorandum to the File 
through Paul Walker, Acting Program Manager, Office 9, from Jerry 
Huang, International Trade Analyst, ``Verification of the Sales and 
Factors of Production Response Camimex in the 2009-10 Administrative 
Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam'', dated March 8, 2010.

Non-Market Economy Country Status

    In every case conducted by the Department involving Vietnam, 
Vietnam 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 Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission 
and Request for Revocation, in Part, of the Fourth Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 12206 (March 15, 2010) (unchanged in final results). None 
of the parties to this proceeding have contested such treatment. 
Accordingly, we calculated the NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 
the Act, which applies to NME countries.

Separate Rates

    In proceedings involving NME countries, it is the Department's 
practice to begin with a rebuttable presumption that all companies 
within the country are subject to government control and thus should be 
assessed a single antidumping duty rate. See, e.g., Separate Rates and 
Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 
Economy Countries. 70 FR 17233 (April 5, 2005); see also 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, 53082 (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, 
29307 (May 22, 2006) (``Diamond Sawblades''). It is the Department's 
policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to investigation 
in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can affirmatively 
demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to 
a separate rate. See, e.g., Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307. 
Exporters can demonstrate this independence through the absence of both 
de jure and de facto government control over export activities. Id. The 
Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under 
a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Sparklers From the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 
20589 (May 6, 1991) (``Sparklers''), as further developed in Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 
From the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585, 22586-87 (May 2, 
1994) (``Silicon Carbide''). However, if the Department determines that 
a company is wholly foreign-owned or located in a market economy 
(``ME''), 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 addition to the three mandatory respondents, Camimex, the Minh 
Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods Group, the Department received 
separate rate applications or certifications from the following 20 
companies (``Separate-Rate Applicants''): Amanda Foods (Vietnam) 
Limited; Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company; C.P. Vietnam Livestock 
Corporation; Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka Cafatex 
Corp.; Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock 
Company, aka CADOVIMEX-VIETNAM; Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company, aka 
Seaprimexco Vietnam; Camranh Seafoods and Branch of Cam Ranh; Can Tho 
Import Export Fishery Limited Company, aka CAFISH; CATACO Sole Member 
Limited Liability Company, aka CATACO; Coastal Fisheries Development 
Corporation, aka COFIDEX; Cuulong Seaproducts Company, aka Cuulong 
Seapro; Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation, aka Seaprodex 
Danang and its branch Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company; 
Grobest & I-Mei Industrial Vietnam Co., Ltd., aka Grobest; Investment 
Commerce Fisheries Corporation, aka INCOMFISH; Kim Anh Company, 
Limited; Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, 
aka Minh Hai Jostoco; Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company, 
aka Seaprodex Minh Hai; Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise and its branch, 
Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprise, aka Ngoc Sinh 
Seafoods; Nhat Dhuc Co., Ltd.; Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company, 
aka Nha Trang Fisco; Phu Cuong Jostoco Seafood Corporation; Phuong Nam 
Foodstuff Corp., aka Phuong Nam Co., Ltd.; Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock 
Company, aka FIMEX VN; Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company, aka 
STAPIMEX; Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation; UTXI Aquatic 
Products Corporation, aka UTXICO; and Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd., a/k/a 
Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. However, 90 companies did not submit either 
a separate-rate application or certification.\5\ Therefore, because 
these companies did not demonstrate their eligibility for separate rate 
status, they remain preliminarily included as part of the Vietnam-wide 
entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Appendix 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we note that some of the Separate-Rate Applicants 
requested separate rate status for various names which were not 
included on their business license.\6\ Because these names (1) have not 
been granted separate-rate status in a previous granting period, and 
(2) do not appear on the business license submitted to the Department, 
and therefore are not recognized as representing the same entity, we 
are preliminarily not including these names on the lists of those which 
separate rate status applies.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Appendix II.
    \7\ 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 (September 15, 
2009) (``3rd AR Final'') and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Absence of De Jure Control

    The Department considers the following de jure criteria in 
determining

[[Page 12059]]

whether an individual company may be granted a separate rate: (1) An 
absence of restrictive stipulations associated with an individual 
exporter's business and export licenses; (2) any legislative enactments 
decentralizing control of companies; and (3) any other formal measures 
by the government decentralizing control of companies. See Sparklers, 
56 FR at 20589. The evidence provided by Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, 
Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a 
preliminary finding of de jure absence of government control based on 
the following: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations associated 
with the individual exporter's business and export licenses; (2) there 
are applicable legislative enactments decentralizing control of the 
companies; and (3) there are formal measures by the government 
decentralizing control of companies. See, e.g., Camimex's AQR at 
Exhibit A-1, the Minh Phu Group's AQR at Exhibit 1, Nha Trang Seafoods 
Group's AQR at Exhibit A-1.

b. Absence of De Facto Control

    Typically the Department considers four factors in evaluating 
whether each respondent is subject to de facto government control of 
its export functions: (1) Whether the export prices are set by or are 
subject to the approval of a government agency; (2) whether the 
respondent has authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other 
agreements; (3) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government 
in making decisions regarding the selection of management; and (4) 
whether the respondent retains the proceeds of its export sales and 
makes independent decisions regarding disposition of profits or 
financing of losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586-87; see also 
Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 
Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 
22545 (May 8, 1995). The Department has determined that an analysis of 
de facto control is critical in determining whether respondents are, in 
fact, subject to a degree of government control which would preclude 
the Department from assigning separate rates. The evidence provided by 
Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and the 
Separate-Rate Applicants supports a preliminary finding of de facto 
absence of government control based on the following: (1) The companies 
set their own export prices independent of the government and without 
the approval of a government authority; (2) the companies have 
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and other agreements; (3) the 
companies have autonomy from the government in making decisions 
regarding the selection of management; and (4) there is no restriction 
on any of the companies' use of export revenue. See, e.g., Camimex's 
AQR at 2-15 and Exhibit A-1, the Minh Phu Group's AQR at 3-26 and 
Exhibit A-1, Nha Trang Seafoods Group's AQR at 3-16 and Exhibit A-1. 
Therefore, the Department preliminarily finds that Camimex, the Minh 
Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and the Separate-Rate Applicants 
have established that they qualify for a separate rate under the 
criteria established by Silicon Carbide and Sparklers.

Separate Rate Calculation

    For exporters subject to administrative review that were determined 
to be eligible for separate rate status, but were not selected as 
mandatory respondents, the Department generally weight-averages the 
rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates 
that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available.\8\ 
Consequently, consistent with our practice, we have preliminarily 
established a margin for the separate rate respondents based on the 
rates we calculated for the two mandatory respondents that received a 
calculated margin. We note that it is the Department's practice to 
calculate the rate based on the average of the margins calculated for 
those companies selected for individual review, weighted by each 
company's publicly-ranged quantity of reported U.S. transactions. See 
Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-
Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 
53663 (Sept. 1, 2010) (``Ball Bearings''). Because we cannot apply our 
normal methodology of calculating a weighted-average margin due to 
requests to protect business-proprietary information, we have 
calculated the separate rate based on a simple average of Camimex and 
the Minh Phu Group's margins. Following these preliminary results, the 
Department intends to request that the mandatory respondents provide 
the Department with publicly-ranged quantities of their reported U.S. 
transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the People's 
Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 
Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 8273, 8279 
(February 13, 2008) (unchanged in final results).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vietnam-Wide Entity

    Upon initiation of the administrative review, we provided the 
opportunity for all companies upon which the review was initiated to 
complete either the separate-rates application or certification. The 
separate-rate certification and separate-rate applications were 
available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html.
    We have preliminarily determined that 90 companies did not 
demonstrate their eligibility for a separate rate and are properly 
considered part of the Vietnam-wide entity. In NME proceedings, 
```rates' may consist of a single dumping margin applicable to all 
exporters and producers.'' See 19 CFR 351.107(d). As explained above in 
the ``Separate Rates'' section, all companies within Vietnam 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 Antidumping Duty Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value and Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish 
Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 
2003). In this regard, we note that no party has submitted evidence of 
the proceeding to demonstrate that such government influence is no 
longer present or that our treatment of the NME entity is otherwise 
incorrect. Therefore, we are assigning the entity's current rate of 
25.76%, the only rate ever determined for the Vietnam-wide entity in 
this proceeding.

Surrogate Country

    When the Department conducts an antidumping administrative review 
of 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 ME country or countries considered to be appropriate by 
the Department. In accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the

[[Page 12060]]

Act, in valuing the FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to the extent 
possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in one or more ME countries that 
are: (1) At a level of economic development comparable to that of the 
NME country; and (2) significant producers of comparable merchandise. 
Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the Department will normally 
value FOP in a single country, except for labor. The sources of the 
surrogate factor values are discussed under the ``Normal Value'' 
section below and in Memorandum to the File through Paul Walker, Acting 
Program Manager, Office 9 from Jerry Huang, International Trade 
Analyst, Office 9; 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews of 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Surrogate Values for the Preliminary Results, dated February 28, 2011 
(``Surrogate Value Memorandum'').
    On August 20, 2010, the Department sent interested parties a letter 
requesting comments on surrogate country selection and information 
pertaining to valuing FOPs. On October 4, 2010, the Department received 
comments from the Domestic Producers and mandatory respondents 
regarding surrogate country. The Domestic Producers submitted surrogate 
country comments suggesting that the Department select the Philippines 
as the surrogate country and the mandatory respondents submitted 
surrogate country comments suggesting that the Department select 
Bangladesh as the surrogate country.
    On November 3, 2010, ASPA/LSA, Domestic Producers, and the 
mandatory respondents submitted SV data. On November 12, 2010, the 
Department received a rebuttal response to the Domestic Producers' SV 
submission from the mandatory respondents.
    Pursuant to its practice, the Department received a list of 
potential surrogate countries from Import Administration's Office of 
Policy (``OP'').\9\ The OP determined that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, 
Sri Lanka, the Philippines, and Indonesia were at a comparable level of 
economic development to Vietnam. See Surrogate Country List. The 
Department considers the six countries identified by the OP in its 
Surrogate Country List as ``equally comparable in terms of economic 
development.'' Id. Thus, we find that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri 
Lanka, the Philippines, and Indonesia are all at an economic level of 
development equally comparable to that of Vietnam. We note that the 
Surrogate Country List is a non-exhaustive list of economically 
comparable countries. Moreover, we find that Egypt, Indonesia, and the 
Philippines are both economically comparable to Vietnam and significant 
producers of the subject merchandise. We also note that the record does 
not contain publicly available SV factor information Pakistan, India, 
or Sri Lanka.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting Director, Office 
of Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 
Office 9: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for a 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 
on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 
dated May 15, 2009 (``Surrogate Country List'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to Indonesia, the record contains publicly available 
surrogate factor value information for some factors. The Minh Phu 
Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and Camimex provided data for both 
Indonesia and Bangladesh from a study conducted by the Network of 
Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific (``NACA''), an intergovernmental 
organization affiliated with the United Nation's (``UN'') Food and 
Agricultural Organization (``FAO''). However, unlike the Bangladeshi 
data within the NACA study, the Indonesian shrimp data is limited and 
does not satisfy as many factors of the Department's data selection 
criteria (e.g., broad-market average). Thus, Indonesia is not the most 
appropriate surrogate country for purposes of this review.
    With regard to the Philippines, the record contains publicly 
available surrogate factor value information for all FOPs. Domestic 
Producers provided shrimp data for the Philippines from the 2009 
Fisheries Situationer, published by the Philippines Bureau of 
Agricultural Statistics (``BAS''). Dissimilar to the Bangladeshi data 
within the NACA study, the Philippine shrimp data is limited and does 
not satisfy as many factors of the Department's data selection 
criteria. Specifically, we note that the 2009 Fisheries Situationer 
contains no count-size specific data. In prior administrative reviews, 
the Department found that count-size specific data is important in 
calculating accurate dumping margins, and rejected shrimp SVs with 
limited count sizes. See 3rd AR Final at Comment 6. Thus, the 
Philippines is not the most appropriate surrogate country for purposes 
of this review.
    The Department's practice when selecting the best available 
information for valuing FOPs, in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 
the Act, is to select, to the extent practicable, SVs which are 
product-specific, representative of a broad-market average, publicly 
available, contemporaneous with the POR and exclusive of taxes and 
duties.\10\ As a general matter, the Department prefers to use publicly 
available data representing a broad-market average to value SVs. Id. 
The Department notes that the value of the main input, head-on, shell-
on shrimp, is a critical FOP in the dumping calculation as it accounts 
for a significant percentage of NV. Moreover, the ability to value 
shrimp on a count-size basis is a significant consideration with 
respect to the data available on the record, as the subject merchandise 
and the raw shrimp input are both sold on a count-size specific basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Fresh Garlic from the People's Republic of China: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of the Eleventh Administrative Review 
and New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study are compiled by 
the UN's FAO from actual pricing records kept by Bangladeshi farmers, 
traders, depots, agents, and processors. See Surrogate Value 
Memorandum. The Bangladeshi shrimp values within the NACA study are 
publicly available, represent a broad-market average, are product-
specific, count-size-specific, contemporaneous and represent actual 
transaction prices. Regarding the Philippine data, BAS is unclear in 
the methodology it used to gather the average price for black tiger 
shrimp, whether the price is calculated from actual transaction prices, 
and the timeframe for data collection. Therefore, with respect to the 
data considerations, because the record contains shrimp values for 
Bangladesh that better meet our selection criteria than the Philippine 
source, we are selecting Bangladesh as the surrogate country.
    In this regard, given the above-cited facts, we find that the 
information on the record shows that Bangladesh is an appropriate 
surrogate country because Bangladesh is at a similar level of economic 
development pursuant to section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant 
producer of comparable merchandise, and has reliable, publicly 
available data for surrogate valuation purposes.
    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results 
in an antidumping administrative review, interested parties may submit 
publicly available information to value FOPs within 20 days after the 
date of publication of these preliminary results.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 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. 
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.

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

[[Page 12061]]

Date of Sale

    Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods Group reported 
the invoice date as the date of sale because they claim that, for their 
U.S. sales of subject merchandise made during the POR, the material 
terms of sale were established on the invoice date. The Department 
preliminarily determines that the invoice date is the most appropriate 
date to use as Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods 
Group's date of sale, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004) and accompanying Issues 
and Decision Memorandum at Comment 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Value Comparisons

    To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp to 
the United States by Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang 
Seafoods Group were made at less-than-fair-value, the Department 
compared the export price (``EP'') to NV, as described in the ``U.S. 
Price,'' and ``Normal Value'' sections below.

U.S. Price

A. Export Price

Export Price
    In accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, the Department 
calculated the EP for sales to the United States from Camimex, Nha 
Trang Seafoods Group, and some of the Minh Phu Group's sales, because 
the first sale to an unaffiliated party was made before the date of 
importation. The Department calculated EP based on the price to 
unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. In accordance with 
section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we deducted from the 
starting price to unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland freight and 
brokerage and handling. Each of these services was either provided by 
an NME vendor or paid for using an NME currency. Thus, we based the 
deduction of these movement charges on SVs. Additionally, for 
international freight provided by an ME provider and paid in an ME 
currency, we used the actual cost per kilogram of the freight. See 
Surrogate Value Memorandum for details regarding the SVs for movement 
expenses.

B. Constructed Export Price

    For the majority of the Minh Phu Group'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 the Vietnam-based 
company 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 adjustments, 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 Vietnam service 
providers or paid for in Vietnamese Dong, we valued these services 
using SVs (see ``Factors of Production'' section below for further 
discussion). For those expenses that were provided by an ME provider 
and paid for in ME 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 all of the 
mandatory respondents, see Memorandum to the File, from Paul Walker, 
Acting Program Manager, Office 9, 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: MPG Program Analysis for the Preliminary 
Determination, dated February 28, 2011.

Normal Value

    Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall 
determine the NV using an FOPs 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 FOPs reported by respondents for the POR, except as noted 
above. To calculate NV, we multiplied the reported per-unit factor-
consumption rates by publicly available Bangladeshi SVs. In selecting 
the SVs, 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. Specifically, we added to 
Bangladeshi import SVs a surrogate freight cost using the shorter of 
the reported distance from the domestic supplier to the factory of 
production or the distance from the nearest seaport to the factory of 
production where appropriate. This adjustment is in accordance with the 
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's (``CAFC'') decision in Sigma 
Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407-1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 
Where we did not use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we calculated 
freight based on the reported distance from the supplier to the 
factory.
    In accordance with the OTCA 1988 legislative history, the 
Department continues to apply its long-standing practice of 
disregarding SVs if it has a reason to believe or suspect the source 
data may be subsidized.\13\ In this regard, the Department has 
previously found that it is appropriate to disregard such prices from 
India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand because we have determined 
that these countries maintain broadly available, non-industry specific 
export subsidies.\14\ Based on the existence of these subsidy programs 
that were generally available

[[Page 12062]]

to all exporters and producers in these countries at the time of the 
POR, the Department finds that it is reasonable to infer that all 
exporters from India, Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand may have 
benefitted from these subsidies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Conf. 
Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd 
Sess. (1988) (``OTCA 1988'') at 590.
    \14\ See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from India: Final 
Results of the Expedited Five-year (Sunset) Review of the 
Countervailing Duty Order, 75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4-5; Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from Indonesia: Final Results of 
Expedited Sunset Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4; see Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: 
Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 
2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at 17, 19-20; see Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 
Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 
Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 2001) and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we disregarded prices from NME countries.\15\ 
Finally, imports that were labeled as originating from an 
``unspecified'' country were excluded from the average value, because 
the Department could not be certain that they were not from either an 
NME country or a country with general export subsidies. For further 
detail, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and 
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Final Results of 
1998-1999 Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and 
Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 
2001), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on the information currently available, we have 
not used prices from these countries either in calculating the 
Bangladeshi import-based SVs or in calculating ME input values. In 
instances where an ME input was obtained solely from suppliers located 
in these countries, we used Bangladeshi import-based SVs to value the 
input.
    The Department notes that Domestic Producers submitted Philippine 
shrimp values and the mandatory respondents submitted Bangladeshi 
shrimp values with which to value the main input, raw shrimp. Domestic 
Producers submitted Philippine shrimp values obtained from the January-
December 2009 Fisheries Situationer published by the Philippines 
Department of Agriculture Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. As stated 
above, the Minh Phu Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, Grobest, and 
Camimex submitted data contained in the NACA study compiled by the UN's 
FAO.
    As stated above, the Department's practice when selecting the best 
available information for valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent 
practicable, SVs which are product-specific, representative of a broad-
market average, publicly available, contemporaneous with the POR and 
exclusive of taxes and duties. Domestic Producers' submitted shrimp 
value from the Fisheries Situationer, although publicly available, is 
not count-size specific. As noted above, the shrimp values within the 
NACA study are compiled from actual pricing records kept by Bangladeshi 
farmers, traders, depots, agents, and processors, are count-specific, 
and publicly available. Therefore, to value the main input, head-on, 
shell-on shrimp, the Department used data contained in the NACA 
study.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For a detailed explanation of the Department's valuation of 
shrimp, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department used United Nations ComTrade Statistics, provided by 
the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs' Statistics Division, 
as its primary source of Bangladeshi SV data.\17\ The data represents 
cumulative values for the calendar year 2007, for inputs classified by 
the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System number. For each 
input value, we used the average value per unit for that input imported 
into Bangladesh from all countries that the Department has not 
previously determined to be NME countries. Import statistics from 
countries that the Department has determined to be countries which 
subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and India) 
and imports from unspecified countries also were excluded in the 
calculation of the average value. See Notice of Final Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of 
Critical Circumstances: Certain Color Television Receivers From the 
People's Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Lastly, the 
Department has also excluded imports from Bangladesh into Bangladesh 
because there is no evidence on the record regarding what these data 
represent (e.g., re-importations, another category of unspecified 
imports, or the result of an error in reporting). Thus, these data do 
not represent the best available information upon which to rely for 
valuation purposes. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010) 
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ This can be accessed online at: http://www.unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is the Department's practice to calculate price index adjustors 
to inflate or deflate, as appropriate, SVs that are not contemporaneous 
with the POR using the wholesale price index (``WPI'') for the subject 
country. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Hand Trucks and 
Certain Parts Thereof From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 29509 
(May 24, 2004). However, in this case, a WPI was not available for 
Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly available information 
contemporaneous with the POR with which to value factors could not be 
obtained, SVs were adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (``CPI'') 
rate for Bangladesh, or the WPI for India or Indonesia (for certain SVs 
where Bangladeshi data could not be obtained), as published in the 
International Financial Statistics of the International Monetary Fund. 
We made currency conversions, where necessary, pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.415, to U.S. dollars using the daily exchange rate corresponding to 
the reported date of each sale. We relied on the daily exchange rates 
posted on the Import Administration Web site (http://www.trade.gov/ia/
). See Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    The Department used UN ComTrade to value the raw material and 
packing material inputs that Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang 
Seafoods Group used to produce the merchandise under review during the 
POR, except where listed below. For a detailed description of all SVs 
for respondents, see Surrogate Value Memorandum.
    On May 14, 2010, the CAFC in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 
F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 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. 
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 Vietnam 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 
Vietnam, and signifi