Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision, 27991-27993 [2011-11822]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Reviews, 75 FR 66349 (October 28,
2010) and Initiation of Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Administrative
Reviews, 75 FR 73036 (November 29,
2010).1 See also Initiation of
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews; Correction, 75
FR 69054 (November 10, 2010). In the
October 28, 2010 notice, we initiated on
five companies requested by Nashville
Wire Products Inc. and SSW Holding
Company, Inc. (collectively
‘‘Petitioners’’); after receiving further
information from Petitioners, we
initiated on two additional companies
requested by Petitioners on November
29, 2010.
The current deadline for the
preliminary results of this
administrative review is June 2, 2011.
Duty Administrative Review of Certain
Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks
from the People’s Republic of China’’
dated January 25, 2011. Given these
delays, we do not have sufficient time
to adequately analyze all questionnaire
responses by the mandatory
respondents, in addition to a new
subsidy allegation filed by Petitioners,
before the preliminary results due date.
Consequently, we have determined that
it is not practicable to complete this
review within the originally anticipated
time limit (i.e., by June 2, 2011).
Therefore, the Department is extending
the time limit for completion of the
preliminary results by 120 days to not
later than September 30, 2011, in
accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of
the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
We are issuing and publishing this
notice in accordance with sections
751(a)(3)(A) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary
Results
Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act
of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’),
requires the Department to issue the
preliminary results of an administrative
review within 245 days after the last day
of the anniversary month of an order for
which a review is requested and the
final results of review within 120 days
after the date on which the preliminary
results are published. If it is not
practicable to complete the review
within the time period, section
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the
Department to extend these deadlines to
a maximum of 365 days and 180 days,
respectively.
The full initiation of this review was
delayed by one month because we
required additional information from
Petitioners concerning their review
requests for particular companies. After
the case was fully initiated, we
determined that we needed to obtain
quantity and value information for
respondent selection purposes because
we could not rely on U.S. Customs and
Border Protection data, as is our usual
practice. In this instance, the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States categories including
subject merchandise are overly broad
and contain other products. See
Memorandum from Joseph Shuler,
International Trade Compliance Analyst
of AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, to
Susan H. Kuhbach, Director of AD/CVD
Operations, Office 1, ‘‘Selection of
Respondents for the Countervailing
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 14, 2011, the United
States Court of International Trade
(‘‘CIT’’) sustained the Department of
Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) results
of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s
remand order in Amanda Foods
(Vietnam) Ltd., et al., v. United States,
Consol. Court No. 08–00301 (June 17,
2010).1
Consistent with the decision of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co.
v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1 The Department notes that only the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) for the antidumping duty
administrative review was included in the October
28, 2010 notice, see generally 75 FR 69059. All
notices concerning the countervailing duty review
of the order apply to the POR referenced in the
initiation notices and this notice—January 7, 2009
through December 31, 2009.
1 See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant
To Court Remand, Court No. 08–00301, dated
December 3, 2010, available at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
remands/ (‘‘Amanda II remand
redetermination’’); see also Amanda Foods
(Vietnam) Ltd., et al., v. United States, Court No.
08–00301 (CIT April 14, 2011) Slip Op. 11–39
(judgment).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
Dated: May 9, 2011.
Christian Marsh,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–11845 Filed 5–12–11; 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: Notice of Court Decision Not
in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review and Notice of
Amended Final Results of
Administrative Review Pursuant to
Court Decision
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
27991
1990) (‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by
Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, F.3d, Court No. 2010–
1024, 1090 (Fed. Cir. December 9, 2010)
(‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the Department
is notifying the public that the final
judgment in this case is not in harmony
with the Department’s final
determination and is amending the final
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam covering
the period of review (‘‘POR’’) of February
1, 2006 through January 31, 2007, with
respect to the separate rate margins
assigned to Amanda Foods (Vietnam)
Ltd.; C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd.,
Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and
Processing Joint Stock Company;
Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation;
Can Tho Agricultural and Animal
Product Import Export Company;
Coastal Fishery Development; Cuulong
Seaproducts Company; Danang
Seaproducts Import Export Corporation;
Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32,
Investment Commerce Fisheries
Corporation; Kim Anh Co., Ltd.; Minh
Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing
Joint Stock Company; Minh Hai Export
Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock
Company; Minh Hai Joint-Stock
Seafoods Processing Company; Minh
Hai Sea Products Import Export
Company (Seaprimex Co); Ngoc Sinh
Private Enterprise; Nha Trang Fisheries
Joint Stock Company; Nha Trang
Seaproduct Company; Phu Cuong
Seafood Processing and Import-Export
Co., Ltd.; Phuong Nam Co. Ltd., Sao Ta
Foods Joint Stock Company; Soc Trang
Aquatic Products and General Import
Export Company; UTXI Aquatic
Products Processing Company; and Viet
Foods Co., Ltd, (collectively, the ‘‘23
Plaintiffs’’). See Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR
52273 (September 9, 2008) and
accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘Final Results’’).
DATES: Effective Date: (April 24, 2011)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the second administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on shrimp
from Vietnam, the Department reviewed
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
27992
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices
63 companies. See Final Results, 73 FR
at 52275. Of those 63 companies, two
companies were selected for individual
examination, 26 cooperative, nonindividually examined respondents
demonstrated eligibility for, and
received, a separate rate, and 35
companies were considered part of the
Vietnam-Wide entity because they did
not demonstrate eligibility for a separate
rate. The Department explained in the
Final Results that the statute and the
Department’s regulations do not directly
address the establishment of a rate to be
applied to companies not selected for
individual examination where the
Department has limited its examination
in an administrative review pursuant to
section 777(A)(c)(2) of the Act. The
Department’s practice in this regard, in
cases involving limited selection based
on exporters accounting for the largest
volumes of trade, has been to weightaverage the rates for the selected
companies excluding zero and de
minimis rates and rates based entirely
on facts available. Because the
Department calculated zero and de
minimis rates, respectively, for the two
mandatory respondents, the Department
assigned to the non-individually
examined respondents in this
administrative review with no history of
a calculated margin a separate rate of
4.57 percent, 2 as a reasonable method
reflective of the range of commercial
behavior demonstrated by exporters of
the subject merchandise during a very
recent period in time. See Final Results,
73 FR at 52275 and Comment 6. For
those respondents that were not selected
for individual examination and received
a calculated rate in a more recent or
contemporaneous prior segment, we
assigned that calculated rate as the
company’s separate rate in this review.
See id.
In Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et.
al v. United States Court No. 08–00301
Slip Op. 09–106 (CIT September 29,
2009) (‘‘Amanda I’’), the Court remanded
the separate rate assignment
methodology to the Department to either
assign to Plaintiffs the weighted-average
rate of the mandatory respondents, or
else provide justification, based on
substantial evidence on the record, for
using another rate. See Amanda I at 30.
Consequently, in the Department’s
remand redetermination for Amanda I,
we further explained the reasonableness
of the methodology applied in the Final
Results.
In Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et
al., v. United States, Consol. Court No.
08–00301 (June 17, 2010) (‘‘Amanda II’’),
the Court disagreed with the
Department’s further justification for
applying its separate rate methodology,
and remanded the issue back to the
Department a second time. On remand,
the Court ordered the Department to
employ a reasonable method {to assign
a separate rate}, which may
‘‘ ‘include{e} averaging the estimated
weighted average dumping margins
determined for the exporters and
producers individually investigated,’ 19
U.S.C. 1673d(c)(5)(B) and* * *assign to
Plaintiffs dumping margins for the
second POR which are reasonable
considering the evidence on the record
as a whole; to do so, Commerce may
reopen the evidentiary record if need
be.’’ See Amanda II remand opinion and
order at 26.
In our Amanda II remand
redetermination, under respectful
protest, the Department determined
that, in this instance, it was necessary
to reopen the evidentiary record to
gather additional information, specific
to each of the 23 Plaintiffs, in order to
comply with the Court’s order. As
detailed within footnote 22 of Amanda
II, we reopened the record to gather the
quantity and value of Plaintiffs’ sales to
the United States during the period of
review (‘‘POR’’) on a count-size specific
basis to analyze the data to determine
whether a reasonable separate rate
assignment methodology is supported
by the supplemented evidentiary record.
See Amanda II at footnote 22. The 23
Plaintiffs provided the necessary data
which the Department evaluated to
determine whether there was evidence
of dumping by the 23 Plaintiffs on the
record. See Amanda II remand
redetermination at 5.
After having conducted our analysis,
the Department determined that the
record, with the additional count-size
specific quantity and value data, did not
show evidence of dumping by the 23
Plaintiffs during this POR. Id., at 5–6.
Thus, because the Department has not
found any evidence of dumping by
Plaintiffs during this POR based on the
information currently on the record, we
determined to assign, under protest, a
separate rate to these 23 Plaintiffs equal
to the simple average of the dumping
margins calculated for the individuallyexamined companies.3 Id., at 6–7.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the CAFC has held that, pursuant to
section 516A(e) of the Act, the
Department must publish a notice of a
court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’
with a Department determination and
must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.
The CIT’s April 14, 2011 judgment
sustaining the Department’s remand
redetermination constitutes a final
decision of that court that is not in
harmony with the Department’s Final
Results. This notice is published in
fulfillment of the publication
requirements of Timken. Accordingly,
the Department will continue the
suspension of liquidation of the subject
merchandise pending the expiration of
the period of appeal or, if appealed,
pending a final and conclusive court
decision. The cash deposit rate will
remain the company-specific rate
established for the subsequent and most
recent period during which the
respondents were reviewed.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to the 23 Plaintiffs
named above, revised dumping margins
are as follows:
Simple average
separate rate
margin
(de minimis)
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Exporter name4
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd .....................................................................................................................................................
C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd., aka .........................................................................................................................................
C P Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd., aka
C P Livestock
2 The 4.57 percent margin is the rate calculated
for cooperative separate rate respondents in the
underlying investigation.
3 Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation
(and affiliated Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.), Minh Phu Seafood
Corporation; Minh Phu Seafood Corp., Minh Qui
Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Qui Seafood, Minh Phat
Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phat Seafood, (collectively,
‘‘Minh Phu’’) and Camau Frozen Seafood Processing
Import Export Corporation (‘‘Camimex’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0.01
0.01
4 The separate rate margins for the 23 Plaintiffs
are inclusive of the companies’ names and trade
names as they appeared in Vietnam Shrimp AR2
Final.
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
27993
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 93 / Friday, May 13, 2011 / Notices
Simple average
separate rate
margin
(de minimis)
Exporter name4
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES
Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX’’) aka ............................................
Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex)
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 Khau Can Tho, aka
Cas, aka
Cas Branch, aka
Cafatex Saigon, aka
Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka
Cafatex Corporation, aka
Taydo Seafood Enterprise
Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) aka ...............................................................
Can Tho Agricultural Products aka
CATACO
Coastal Fishery Development aka ..............................................................................................................................................
Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) aka
Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec)
Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka .......................................................................................................
Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro)
Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) aka ...........................................................................
Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company, aka
Seaprodex Danang, aka
Tho Quang Seafood Processing And Export Company, aka
Tho Quang
Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32, aka ........................................................................................................................................
Frozen Seafoods Fty, aka
Thuan Phuoc, aka
Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation, aka
Frozen Seafoods Factory 32, aka
Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory
Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’) .......................................................................................................
Kim Anh Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................................................
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, aka
Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company, aka
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Co.
Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’) ........................................................................
Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co) , aka ....................................................................................
Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’)
Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise, aka ..............................................................................................................................................
Ngoc Sinh Seafoods
Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) ...............................................................................................
Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) .......................................................................................................
Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................
Phuong Nam Co. Ltd., aka ..........................................................................................................................................................
Phuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd.
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’), aka ............................................................................................................
Sao Ta Seafood Factory
Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’) .....................................................................
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
Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Viet Foods’’) .............................................................................................................................................
In the event the CIT’s ruling is not
appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the
CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assess
antidumping duties on entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:22 May 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
from the 23 Plaintiffs based on the
revised assessment rates calculated by
the Department.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Dated: May 9, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011–11822 Filed 5–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
E:\FR\FM\13MYN1.SGM
13MYN1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 93 (Friday, May 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27991-27993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11822]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-552-802]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of
Administrative Review Pursuant to Court Decision
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On April 14, 2011, the United States Court of International
Trade (``CIT'') sustained the Department of Commerce's (``the
Department'') results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT's remand
order in Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et al., v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 08-00301 (June 17, 2010).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court
Remand, Court No. 08-00301, dated December 3, 2010, available at:
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/ (``Amanda II remand
redetermination''); see also Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et al., v.
United States, Court No. 08-00301 (CIT April 14, 2011) Slip Op. 11-
39 (judgment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit (``CAFC'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893
F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (``Timken''), as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, F.3d, Court No. 2010-1024,
1090 (Fed. Cir. December 9, 2010) (``Diamond Sawblades''), the
Department is notifying the public that the final judgment in this case
is not in harmony with the Department's final determination and is
amending the final results of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam covering the period of review (``POR'')
of February 1, 2006 through January 31, 2007, with respect to the
separate rate margins assigned to Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.; C.P.
Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd., Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and
Processing Joint Stock Company; Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock
Corporation; Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export
Company; Coastal Fishery Development; Cuulong Seaproducts Company;
Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation; Frozen Seafoods Factory
No. 32, Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation; Kim Anh Co., Ltd.;
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company; Minh Hai
Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company; Minh Hai Joint-
Stock Seafoods Processing Company; Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export
Company (Seaprimex Co); Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise; Nha Trang
Fisheries Joint Stock Company; Nha Trang Seaproduct Company; Phu Cuong
Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd.; Phuong Nam Co. Ltd.,
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company; Soc Trang Aquatic Products and
General Import Export Company; UTXI Aquatic Products Processing
Company; and Viet Foods Co., Ltd, (collectively, the ``23
Plaintiffs''). See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273 (September 9, 2008)
and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (``Final Results'').
DATES: Effective Date: (April 24, 2011)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC,
20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order
on shrimp from Vietnam, the Department reviewed
[[Page 27992]]
63 companies. See Final Results, 73 FR at 52275. Of those 63 companies,
two companies were selected for individual examination, 26 cooperative,
non-individually examined respondents demonstrated eligibility for, and
received, a separate rate, and 35 companies were considered part of the
Vietnam-Wide entity because they did not demonstrate eligibility for a
separate rate. The Department explained in the Final Results that the
statute and the Department's regulations do not directly address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for
individual examination where the Department has limited its examination
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777(A)(c)(2) of the
Act. The Department's practice in this regard, in cases involving
limited selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes
of trade, has been to weight-average the rates for the selected
companies excluding zero and de minimis rates and rates based entirely
on facts available. Because the Department calculated zero and de
minimis rates, respectively, for the two mandatory respondents, the
Department assigned to the non-individually examined respondents in
this administrative review with no history of a calculated margin a
separate rate of 4.57 percent, \2\ as a reasonable method reflective of
the range of commercial behavior demonstrated by exporters of the
subject merchandise during a very recent period in time. See Final
Results, 73 FR at 52275 and Comment 6. For those respondents that were
not selected for individual examination and received a calculated rate
in a more recent or contemporaneous prior segment, we assigned that
calculated rate as the company's separate rate in this review. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The 4.57 percent margin is the rate calculated for
cooperative separate rate respondents in the underlying
investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et. al v. United States Court No.
08-00301 Slip Op. 09-106 (CIT September 29, 2009) (``Amanda I''), the
Court remanded the separate rate assignment methodology to the
Department to either assign to Plaintiffs the weighted-average rate of
the mandatory respondents, or else provide justification, based on
substantial evidence on the record, for using another rate. See Amanda
I at 30. Consequently, in the Department's remand redetermination for
Amanda I, we further explained the reasonableness of the methodology
applied in the Final Results.
In Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et al., v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 08-00301 (June 17, 2010) (``Amanda II''), the Court disagreed
with the Department's further justification for applying its separate
rate methodology, and remanded the issue back to the Department a
second time. On remand, the Court ordered the Department to employ a
reasonable method {to assign a separate rate{time} , which may ``
`include{e{time} averaging the estimated weighted average dumping
margins determined for the exporters and producers individually
investigated,' 19 U.S.C. 1673d(c)(5)(B) and* * *assign to Plaintiffs
dumping margins for the second POR which are reasonable considering the
evidence on the record as a whole; to do so, Commerce may reopen the
evidentiary record if need be.'' See Amanda II remand opinion and order
at 26.
In our Amanda II remand redetermination, under respectful protest,
the Department determined that, in this instance, it was necessary to
reopen the evidentiary record to gather additional information,
specific to each of the 23 Plaintiffs, in order to comply with the
Court's order. As detailed within footnote 22 of Amanda II, we reopened
the record to gather the quantity and value of Plaintiffs' sales to the
United States during the period of review (``POR'') on a count-size
specific basis to analyze the data to determine whether a reasonable
separate rate assignment methodology is supported by the supplemented
evidentiary record. See Amanda II at footnote 22. The 23 Plaintiffs
provided the necessary data which the Department evaluated to determine
whether there was evidence of dumping by the 23 Plaintiffs on the
record. See Amanda II remand redetermination at 5.
After having conducted our analysis, the Department determined that
the record, with the additional count-size specific quantity and value
data, did not show evidence of dumping by the 23 Plaintiffs during this
POR. Id., at 5-6. Thus, because the Department has not found any
evidence of dumping by Plaintiffs during this POR based on the
information currently on the record, we determined to assign, under
protest, a separate rate to these 23 Plaintiffs equal to the simple
average of the dumping margins calculated for the individually-examined
companies.\3\ Id., at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliated
Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.), Minh
Phu Seafood Corporation; Minh Phu Seafood Corp., Minh Qui Seafood
Co., Ltd., Minh Qui Seafood, Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phat
Seafood, (collectively, ``Minh Phu'') and Camau Frozen Seafood
Processing Import Export Corporation (``Camimex'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades, the CAFC has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the
Act, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is
not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The
CIT's April 14, 2011 judgment sustaining the Department's remand
redetermination constitutes a final decision of that court that is not
in harmony with the Department's Final Results. This notice is
published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation
of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of
appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.
The cash deposit rate will remain the company-specific rate established
for the subsequent and most recent period during which the respondents
were reviewed.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 23
Plaintiffs named above, revised dumping margins are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The separate rate margins for the 23 Plaintiffs are
inclusive of the companies' names and trade names as they appeared
in Vietnam Shrimp AR2 Final.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple average
separate rate
Exporter name\4\ margin (de
minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.......................... 0.01
C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd., aka................ 0.01
C P Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd., aka
C P Livestock
[[Page 27993]]
Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint 0.01
Stock Company (``CADOVIMEX'') aka..................
Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company
(Cadovimex)
Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (``Cafatex 0.01
Corp.'') aka.......................................
Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export
Enterprise (Cafatex), aka
Cafatex, aka
Cafatex Vietnam, aka
Xi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat Khau Can Tho,
aka
Cas, aka
Cas Branch, aka
Cafatex Saigon, aka
Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka
Cafatex Corporation, aka
Taydo Seafood Enterprise
Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import 0.01
Export Company (``CATACO'') aka....................
Can Tho Agricultural Products aka
CATACO
Coastal Fishery Development aka..................... 0.01
Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec)
aka
Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec)
Cuulong Seaproducts Company (``Cuu Long Seapro'') 0.01
aka................................................
Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro)
Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation 0.01
(``Seaprodex Danang'') aka.........................
Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company, aka
Seaprodex Danang, aka
Tho Quang Seafood Processing And Export Company, aka
Tho Quang
Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32, aka................. 0.01
Frozen Seafoods Fty, aka
Thuan Phuoc, aka
Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation, aka
Frozen Seafoods Factory 32, aka
Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory
Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation 0.01
(``Incomfish'')....................................
Kim Anh Co., Ltd.................................... 0.01
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint 0.01
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, aka
Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafood Processing Joint-Stock
Company, aka
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-
Stock Co.
Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company 0.01
(``Seaprodex Minh Hai'')...........................
Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company 0.01
(Seaprimex Co) , aka...............................
Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (``SEAPRIMEXCO'')
Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise, aka................... 0.01
Ngoc Sinh Seafoods
Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (``Nha Trang 0.01
Fisco'')...........................................
Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (``Nha Trang 0.01
Seafoods'')........................................
Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., 0.01
Ltd................................................
Phuong Nam Co. Ltd., aka............................ 0.01
Phuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd.
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (``Fimex VN''), aka 0.01
Sao Ta Seafood Factory
Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export 0.01
Company (``Stapimex'').............................
UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company, aka....... 0.01
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
Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (``Viet Foods'')............... 0.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed,
upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR from the 23 Plaintiffs based on the
revised assessment rates calculated by the Department.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: May 9, 2011.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-11822 Filed 5-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
