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 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: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ remands/index.html (‘‘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: 
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/index.html (``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