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
<![CDATA[
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withdrawn from warehouse, for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: https://
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: https://
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 (https://
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
https://www.oocl.com/bangladesh/eng/
localinformation/localsurcharges/
?site=bangladesh&lang=eng and https://
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: https://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: https://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 (https://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
