Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary No Shipment Determination, 13082-13093 [2012-5263]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• International Trade Administration

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 43 (Monday, March 5, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13082-13093]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5263]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-549-822]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Preliminary 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Preliminary No 
Shipment Determination

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce (Department) is conducting the 
sixth

[[Page 13083]]

administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen 
warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand. The respondents which the 
Department selected for individual examination are Pakfood Public 
Company Limited and its affiliated subsidiaries (collectively, 
``Pakfood'') \1\ and Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (TRF). The 
respondents which were not selected for individual examination are 
listed in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section of this notice. 
The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These subsidiaries are: Okeanos Co., Ltd., Okeanos Food Co., 
Ltd., Takzin Samut Co., Ltd., Chaophraya Cold Storage Co., Ltd., and 
Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that Pakfood and TRF have made sales at 
below normal value (NV) and, therefore, are subject to antidumping 
duties. In addition, based on the preliminary results for the 
respondents selected for individual examination, we have preliminarily 
determined a margin for those companies that were not individually 
examined.
    If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results.

DATES: Effective Date: March 5, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Wiltse or Holly Phelps, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6345 or (202) 482-0656, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
Thailand.\2\ On February 1, 2011, the Department published in the 
Federal Register a notice of opportunity to request an administrative 
review of the antidumping duty order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp 
from Thailand for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 
2011.\3\ In response to timely requests from interested parties 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2) to conduct an administrative 
review of the U.S. sales of shrimp by numerous Thai producers/
exporters, the Department published a notice of initiation of 
administrative review for 156 companies.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 1, 2005) (Shrimp Order).
    \3\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 5559 (Feb. 1, 2011).
    \4\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India, and 
Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 76 FR 18157 (Apr. 1, 2011) (Initiation Notice). Following 
the publication of the Initiation Notice, several companies provided 
clarifications regarding their legal company names and/or addresses. 
As a result, the number of companies covered by this administrative 
review has been adjusted to reflect these clarifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department indicated that, in the 
event that we would limit the respondents selected for individual 
examination in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), we would select mandatory respondents for 
individual examination based upon CBP entry data. See Initiation 
Notice, 76 FR at 18157.
    In April 2011, we received comments on the issue of respondent 
selection from the petitioner,\5\ the American Shrimp Processors 
Association (ASPA), and three producers/exporters of subject 
merchandise ((Marine Gold Products Limited (MRG)), Pakfood, and TRF). 
In its comments, MRG requested that the Department accept it as a 
voluntary respondent if it were not selected as a mandatory respondent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From April through June 2011, we received statements from 14 
companies that indicated that they had no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. In May 2011, after 
considering the large number of potential exporters or producers 
involved in this administrative review, and the resources available to 
the Department, we determined that it was not practicable to examine 
all exporters/producers of subject merchandise for which a review was 
requested.\6\ As a result, pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the 
Act, we determined that we could reasonably individually examine only 
the two producers/exporters accounting for the largest volume of 
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand during the POR (i.e., 
Pakfood and TRF). Accordingly, we issued the antidumping duty 
questionnaire to Pakfood and TRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 
Operations, from Holly Phelps, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 
entitled, ``2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Selection of 
Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated May 19, 2011 (Respondent 
Selection Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the respondent selection process, we outlined the 
conditions under which the Department would analyze data filed by 
voluntary respondents in the current review, stating that we would only 
do so if the mandatory respondents failed to respond to the 
Department's requests for information. See Respondent Selection Memo, 
at 18. In June 2011, we notified MRG that, although it was not a 
respondent in the review, the Department would accept its voluntary 
responses as timely filed if received by the same deadlines as set for 
the mandatory respondents. Also in June, we received responses from 
MRG, Pakfood, and TRF to section A (i.e., the section related to 
general information) of the Department's questionnaire.
    In July 2011, we received responses from MRG and Pakfood to section 
B (i.e., the section covering the comparison market sales), section C 
(i.e., the section covering the U.S. market sales), and section D 
(i.e., the section covering cost of production (COP) and constructed 
value (CV)) of the Department's questionnaire.
    In August 2011, we received responses from TRF to sections B and C 
of the Department's questionnaire. Also, in August 2011, the petitioner 
and the ASPA filed company-specific sales-below-cost allegations for 
TRF.
    In September 2011, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost 
investigation for TRF, and we instructed TRF to respond to section D of 
the Department's questionnaire.\7\ In this same month, we also received 
TRF's section D response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 
Operations, from the Team, entitled, ``2010-2011 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
Thailand: Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee's and the American 
Shrimp Processors Association's Allegations of Sales Below the Cost 
of Production for Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd.,'' dated 
September 14, 2011 (TRF Cost Investigation Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In October 2011, the Department extended the preliminary results in 
the current review to no later than February 28, 2012.\8\ Also in 
October 2011, the Department received additional requests from MRG that 
it be reviewed as a voluntary respondent in the current segment of the 
proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: 
Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of 
the 2010-2011 Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 61668 (Oct. 5, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In November and December 2011, we issued supplemental sales and 
cost questionnaires to Pakfood and TRF, and we received responses to 
these

[[Page 13084]]

supplemental questionnaires in the same months. We also issued an 
additional supplemental sales and cost questionnaire to TRF in January 
2012, and we received the response to this supplemental questionnaire 
in February 2012. Also in February 2012, MRG again requested to be 
reviewed as a voluntary respondent in the current segment of the 
proceeding.

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this 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,\9\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``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 this 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 Thai white prawn (Penaeus indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of this 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 this order.
    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 
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 (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 
shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 
(5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns 
(HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); and (7) certain battered shrimp. 
Battered 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 ten 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. When dusted in accordance with the 
definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp product is also coated 
with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried.
    The products covered by this order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 
0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 
0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 
1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. 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 this order is 
dispositive.

Voluntary Respondents

    As noted above, throughout the course of this review, MRG has 
requested to be treated as a voluntary respondent, and it responded to 
the Department's questionnaire in a timely manner. In MRG's most recent 
request on February 13, 2012, the company cited a recent decision by 
the Court of International Trade (CIT) involving the selection of 
voluntary respondents.\10\ MRG pointed out that the CIT in Grobest held 
that, in order for section 782(a)(2) of the Act to be meaningful, the 
Department must review a voluntary respondent unless it has made an 
independent determination that such a review would be unduly burdensome 
and would inhibit the timely completion of the investigation. See 
Grobest at 41-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., et al. 
v. United States, Slip Op. 12-9 (CIT Jan. 18, 2012) (Grobest).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to MRG, the Department still has adequate time to examine 
the voluntary responses submitted by MRG. Additionally, MRG argues 
that, because it has served as a mandatory respondent in the two most 
recently completed reviews and has submitted timely responses in this 
proceeding, the Department's examination of MRG would not be unduly 
burdensome or inhibit the timely completion of this review.
    In the Respondent Selection Memo, we explained that, based on our 
anticipated workload, we only had the resources to examine individually 
two companies in this review. The review of these two companies 
included analysis of the initial questionnaire responses, as well as 
the issuance of several supplemental questionnaires and analysis of 
their respective responses. This process required the Department to 
extend the deadline for the preliminary results because it was not 
practicable to complete the review within the original deadline. Thus, 
prior to the preliminary results, it would have been unduly burdensome 
and would have inhibited the timely completion of this review for the 
Department to have selected a voluntary respondent. In light of the 
CIT's ruling in Grobest, we have again examined our resources.\11\ 
Based on this reexamination, we find that we do not to have the 
resources to accept additional respondents in this segment of the 
proceeding.\12\ As a result, accepting MRG as a respondent would be 
unduly burdensome, as the Department would have to assign staff to 
analyze its responses (in addition to completing their other casework 
within the statutory deadlines). Moreover, because this analysis would 
have to be performed, and MRG's responses to any supplemental 
questionnaires would be received, after the preliminary results, 
accepting MRG as a voluntary respondent would inhibit the timely 
completion of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We note that the litigation surrounding Grobest has not 
been finalized. The Department's results of remand redetermination 
are due to the CIT by March 16, 2012.
    \12\ AD/CVD Operations Office 2, the office to which this 
administrative review is assigned, has been responsible for 
conducting a number of additional less-than-fair-value 
investigations and administrative reviews (e.g., LTFV investigations 
on large residential washers from the Republic of Korea and Mexico, 
the first administrative review of the antidumping duty order on 
narrow woven ribbons with woven selvedge from Taiwan, etc.) since 
the initiation of this case. These additional cases continue to 
place significant constraints on staffing assignments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to MRG's claim that its questionnaire responses are 
complete

[[Page 13085]]

and thorough, we have no way to evaluate this statement without 
analyzing these responses. However, in the fifth administrative review, 
when MRG was a mandatory respondent, the Department issued four 
supplemental questionnaires to MRG prior to the preliminary results, 
and we have no reason to believe that its responses would not require a 
similar level of analysis here. Indeed, Pakfood has participated in 
five administrative reviews of this order (i.e., three more than MRG) 
and the Department issued multiple supplemental questionnaires to this 
respondent. Given the number of supplemental questionnaires issued to 
the mandatory respondents in this proceeding, as well as our experience 
with MRG during the most recent administrative review in which it was a 
mandatory respondent, we expect that the examination of MRG during this 
proceeding would require a significant expenditure of resources, would 
be unduly burdensome, and would inhibit the timely completion of this 
review.
    Therefore, we have not calculated an individual rate for MRG for 
purposes of the preliminary results; instead, we have assigned MRG the 
review-specific average rate of 1.48 percent.

Preliminary No Shipment Determination

    As noted in the ``Background'' section, above, in April and May 
2011, 14 companies notified the Department that they had no shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. Only nine 
of these claims, however, were properly filed and/or contained 
information sufficient to determine whether shipments were, in fact, 
made. The Department subsequently confirmed with CBP the no-shipment 
claims made by these nine companies. Because the evidence on the record 
indicates that these companies did not export subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR, we preliminarily determine that the 
following nine companies had no reviewable transactions during the POR:
    (1) Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd.
    (2) F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited
    (3) Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.
    (4) Lucky Union Foods Co., Ltd.
    (5) Namprik Maesri Ltd., Part.
    (6) S&P Syndicate Public Co., Ltd.
    (7) Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd.
    (8) Thai Union Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
    (9) V. Thai Food Product Co., Ltd.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ This company was listed in the Initiation Notice as V Thai 
Food Product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the implementation of the 1997 regulations, our practice 
concerning no-shipment respondents has been to rescind the 
administrative review if the respondent certifies that it had no 
shipments and we have confirmed through our examination of CBP data 
that there were no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.\14\ 
As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instruct CBP to 
liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the deposit rate 
in effect on the date of entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27393 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we 
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review 
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to 
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) 
(Assessment Policy Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate 
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address, 
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any 
existing entries of merchandise produced by the nine companies listed 
above and exported by other parties, at the all-others rate, should we 
continue to find that these companies had no shipments of subject 
merchandise in the POR in our final results.\16\ In addition, the 
Department finds that it is more consistent with the May 2003 
clarification not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances 
but, rather, to complete the review with respect to these nine 
companies and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final 
results of the review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of this 
notice, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian 
Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
75 FR 56989 (Sept. 17, 2010); and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 76700, 76701 (Dec. 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the remaining five companies which submitted 
deficient statements of no shipments during the POR, three of the five 
companies (i.e., Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., Ltd., Gulf Coast Crab 
International Co., Ltd., and Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd.) did 
not properly certify their statements of no shipments in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1). The remaining two companies (i.e., Daedong 
(Thailand) Co., Ltd. and Tep Kinsho Foods, Ltd.) submitted statements 
of no shipments containing inadequate information. Although we 
contacted each of these companies to request that they correct the 
deficiencies, none has responded to our requests. Therefore, we 
preliminarily find that there is insufficient evidence on the record of 
this review to conclude that these companies made no shipments of 
subject merchandise to the United States during the POR, and we have 
assigned each of the five companies listed above a preliminary dumping 
rate based on the average of the rates calculated for Pakfood and TRF.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of shrimp from Thailand to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to 
the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for 
Pakfood and TRF, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. transactions, 
as applicable, to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product 
in the appropriate corresponding calendar month where there were sales 
made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Pakfood and TRF covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales of shrimp to 
sales of shrimp made in the home market within the contemporaneous 
window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of 
the first U.S. sale until two months after the month of the last U.S. 
sale.
    Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the home 
market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, 
according to section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we compared U.S. sales of 
non-broken shrimp to sales of the most similar non-broken foreign like 
product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the product 
comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the physical 
characteristics reported by Pakfood and TRF in the following order: 
cooked form, head status, count size, organic certification, shell 
status, vein

[[Page 13086]]

status, tail status, other shrimp preparation, frozen form, flavoring, 
container weight, presentation, species, and preservative. Where there 
were no sales of identical or similar non-broken merchandise, we made 
product comparisons using CV, as discussed in the ``Calculation of 
Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section below. See section 
773(a)(4) of the Act.
    With respect to sales comparisons involving broken shrimp, we 
compared Pakfood's sales of broken shrimp in the United States to sales 
of comparable quality shrimp in the home market. Where there were no 
sales of identical broken shrimp in the home market made in the 
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales of broken shrimp to sales of the most similar broken shrimp made 
in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical 
or similar broken shrimp, we made product comparisons using CV. TRF did 
not make sales of broken shrimp to the United States during the POR. 
Therefore, we disregarded TRF's home market sales of broken shrimp for 
purposes of product comparisons.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Pakfood and TRF, we used EP methodology, 
in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold by the producer/exporter outside of the United 
States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States prior to importation and constructed export price (CEP) 
methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.

A. Pakfood

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
also made deductions from the starting price for foreign warehousing 
expenses, foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses, ocean freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, 
U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, FDA inspection expenses, and U.S. 
customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise 
processing fees), where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Finally, we adjusted foreign warehousing 
expenses to account for services that were provided by affiliated 
parties at prices that were not at arm's length.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See the Memorandum to the File, from Holly Phelps, Analyst, 
Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ``Calculation Adjustments for 
Pakfood Public Company Limited and its affiliated subsidiaries, 
Okeanos Co., Ltd., Okeanos Food Co., Ltd., Takzin Samut Co., Ltd., 
Chaophraya Coldstorage Co., Ltd., and Asia Pacific (Thailand) 
Company Ltd. (collectively, ``Pakfood''), for the Preliminary 
Results in the 2010-2011 Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,'' dated February 28, 2012 (Pakfood 
Sales Calculation Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. TRF

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to the 
starting price for billing adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(c). We also made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
inland freight expenses, foreign gate charges, foreign brokerage and 
handling expenses, international freight expenses, marine insurance 
expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. customs duties 
(including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), 
where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. See section 
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that 
Pakfood and TRF had viable home markets during the POR. Consequently, 
we based NV on home market sales for Pakfood and TRF.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing.\18\ 
In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we 
reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of 
distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer 
category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Id; see also Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of 
Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 50999, 
51001 (Aug. 18, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 7 (OJ from Brazil).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\19\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general 
and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where 
possible.
    \20\ See Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 
1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it possible, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment is possible), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See, e.g., OJ from Brazil, 75 FR at 51001.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from both 
respondents regarding the marketing stages involved in making the 
reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of 
distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below.
1. Pakfood
    Pakfood reported that it made EP sales through a single channel of 
distribution (i.e., direct sales to distributors). We examined the 
selling activities performed for U.S. sales and found that Pakfood 
performed the following selling functions: sales forecasting, market 
research, sales promotion, advertising, order processing, procurement/
sourcing

[[Page 13087]]

services, direct sales personnel, provision of cash discounts, payment 
of commissions, freight and delivery services, warehousing, and 
packing. Selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling 
function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight 
and delivery services; 3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and 4) 
warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling 
function categories, we find that Pakfood performed sales and 
marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are 
made through a single distribution channel (i.e., direct sales to 
unaffiliated customers) and the selling activities to Pakfood's 
customers did not vary within this channel, we preliminarily determine 
that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the home market, Pakfood reported that it made 
sales to manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and end-users. Pakfood 
stated that its home market sales were made through a single channel of 
distribution, direct from factory to customer, and that it performed 
the following selling functions for sales to home market customers: 
sales forecasting, market research, sales promotion, advertising, 
procurement/sourcing services, order processing, direct sales 
personnel, provision of cash discounts, freight and delivery services, 
warehousing, and packing. Selling activities can be generally grouped 
into four selling function categories for analysis: (1) Sales and 
marketing; (2) freight and delivery services; and (3) inventory 
maintenance and warehousing; and (4) warranty and technical support. 
Accordingly, we find that Pakfood performed sales and marketing, 
freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing for all customers in the home market. Because all sales in 
the home market sales are made through a single distribution channel 
and the selling activities to Pakfood's customers did not vary within 
this channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the 
home market for Pakfood.
    Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers 
are virtually identical, with the exception of commission payments made 
for certain U.S. sales. We note that this difference is not a 
sufficient basis to determine that the U.S. LOT is different from the 
home market LOT. Moreover, although there are some differences in the 
level of intensity at which some of the selling functions were 
performed in the two markets (i.e., more advertising and sales 
promotion to home market customers, and more packing to U.S. 
customers), we find that these differences are not significant. 
Therefore, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, we 
preliminarily determine that sales to the U.S. and home markets during 
the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment 
is warranted.
2. TRF
    TRF reported that it made sales through one channel of distribution 
in the United States (i.e., EP sales made directly to unaffiliated 
customers). TRF reported performing the following selling functions for 
its U.S. sales: sales forecasting; customer contact; price negotiation; 
order processing; invoice issuance; delivery arrangements; preparation 
of company quality certificate; payment receipt; storage of finished 
goods prior to sale; warranty services; and sales support. These 
selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling function 
categories for analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight and 
delivery; (3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and (4) warranty 
and technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling function 
categories, we find that TRF performed sales and marketing, freight and 
delivery services, inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty 
and technical support for all U.S. sales.
    With respect to the home market, TRF reported that it made sales 
through two channels of distribution (i.e., direct sales made by TRF to 
the unaffiliated customer; and sales made by TRF to an affiliated 
reseller). In determining whether separate LOTs exist in the home 
market, we compared the selling functions performed across all channels 
of distribution. TRF reported that it performed the following selling 
functions for sales to all home market customers: sales forecasting; 
customer contact; price negotiation; short-term/spot contracts; order 
processing; invoice issuance; delivery arrangements; company quality 
certificate; payment receipt; storage of finished goods prior to sale; 
warranty services; and sales support. These selling activities can be 
generally grouped into four selling function categories for analysis: 
(1) sales and marketing; (2) freight and delivery services; (3) 
inventory maintenance and warehousing; and (4) warranty and technical 
support.
    In addition to these activities, TRF reported that its affiliated 
reseller maintained an extensive retail presence in Thailand during the 
POR and performed the following additional selling activities for its 
sales: independent sales forecasting, market research, sales promotion/
trade shows/advertising, commission payments, direct sales personnel, 
inventory maintenance, freight and delivery, personnel training, 
provision of discounts, after-sales services, repacking services, and 
procurement/sourcing services. These additional selling activities can 
be generally grouped into four selling function categories for 
analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight and delivery services; 
(3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and (4) warranty and 
technical support. The provision of these additional activities is 
sufficient to determine that the four selling functions that TRF 
performed on sales through its affiliated reseller were at a higher 
degree of intensity than those performed on its direct sales to 
unaffiliated parties. Therefore, because the provision of these 
additional selling activities demonstrates a significant difference in 
selling functions, we find that TRF's sales through its affiliated 
reseller were at a more advanced LOT than its direct sales to 
unaffiliated parties. Accordingly, based on the totality of the facts 
and circumstances, we preliminarily determine that TRF made sales at 
two LOTs in the home market.
    Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOTs and found 
that the U.S. LOT is the same as the home market LOT for TRF's direct 
sales to unaffiliated parties because the selling functions performed 
by TRF are essentially the same in both markets. However, the selling 
functions TRF performed for home market sales through its affiliated 
reseller are at a higher degree of intensity and greater in number than 
the selling functions performed for TRF's U.S. sales. We conclude that 
this difference is sufficient to determine that TRF's home market sales 
through its affiliated reseller are at a different LOT than its U.S. 
sales. Additionally, because the home market LOT of TRF's sales through 
its affiliated reseller is at a different stage of distribution than 
TRF's U.S. LOT, an LOT adjustment is warranted.
    When calculating a LOT adjustment, under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 
the Act, the Department determines whether a pattern of consistent 
price differences exists between the LOTs and, if so, then a LOT 
adjustment is possible. The Department makes a LOT adjustment to normal 
value using the weighted-average difference, as determined on a

[[Page 13088]]

model-specific basis for models sold, in prices between the home market 
LOTs. In the current review, because TRF's home market sales show a 
consistent pattern of price differences between the LOTs, a LOT 
adjustment is possible. Therefore, we made a LOT adjustment to NV on 
all price-to-price comparisons involving sales made at different LOTs.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    We found that Pakfood made sales in the same comparison market 
below the COP in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding 
as of the date of initiation of this review and such sales were 
disregarded.\21\ Thus, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of 
the Act, we found that there were reasonable grounds to believe or 
suspect that Pakfood made sales in the home market at prices below the 
cost of producing the merchandise in the current POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final No 
Shipment Determination, 76 FR 40881, 40883 (July 12, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, on August 23, 2011, the petitioner and the ASPA alleged 
that TRF made sales in the home market, during the POR, that were below 
the COP. Based on our analysis of the allegations made by the 
petitioner and the ASPA, we found that TRF's home market sales which 
fell below the COP were representative of the broader range of sales 
which may be used as a basis for normal value. Therefore, we 
determined, on this basis as well, that there were reasonable grounds 
to believe or suspect that TRF's sales of shrimp in the home market 
were made at prices below its COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 
773(b) of the Act, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation to 
determine whether TRF's sales were made at prices below its COP. See 
TRF Cost Investigation Memo.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
respondents' COPs based on the sum of their costs of materials and 
conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses 
and interest expenses (see ``Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices'' 
section, below, for treatment of home market selling expenses).
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent 
in its most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation. 
We made no adjustments to Pakfood's or TRF's reported COP data for 
purposes of the preliminary results. However, we note that TRF omitted 
certain products sold in the home market during the POR from its COP 
data. Therefore, we have used the cost data reported in TRF's home 
market sales database for these products.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See the memorandum from Ji Young Oh, Senior Accountant, to 
Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results--Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd.,'' dated 
February 28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the record evidence, neither Pakfood nor TRF 
appeared to experience significant changes in the cost of manufacturing 
during the POR. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of 
calculating an annual weighted-average cost.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home 
market sales prices of the foreign like product, in order to determine 
whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this 
comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The 
prices (inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, discounts, direct and 
indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act whether: (1) within an extended period 
of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such 
sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. In 
accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, where less 
than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given 
product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-
cost sales of that product because we determine that in such instances 
the below-cost sales were not made within an extended period of time 
and in ``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a 
respondent's sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we disregard the below-cost sales when: (1) They were made within an 
extended period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance 
with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) based on our 
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they 
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of 
Pakfood's and TRF's home market sales were at prices less than the COP 
and, in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales 
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no 
home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to 
CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See the 
``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section 
below.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

1. Pakfood
    We based NV for Pakfood on ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the home market. Where appropriate, we made 
adjustments to the starting price for billing adjustments. We also made 
deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for inland 
freight and warehousing expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the 
Act. We adjusted certain company-specific warehousing expenses to 
account for services that were provided by affiliated parties at prices 
that were not at arm's length. See the Pakfood Sales Calculation Memo.
    For comparisons to EP sales, we made adjustments under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 
circumstances of sale for direct selling expenses (including imputed 
credit expenses, bank fees, and express mail charges) and commissions, 
where appropriate. Because commissions were paid only in the U.S. 
market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) the 
amount of the commission paid in the U.S. market; or (2) the amount of 
indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) incurred 
in the home market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e).
    Finally, for all price-to-price comparisons, we made adjustments 
for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act.

[[Page 13089]]

2. TRF
    For TRF, we calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers in the home market. We made adjustments to the starting 
price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments and rebates, in 
accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions for foreign 
inland freight expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    For comparisons to EP sales, we made adjustments under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 
circumstances of sale for direct selling expenses (including bank fees 
and imputed credit expenses) and commissions, where appropriate. 
Because commissions were paid only on sales in the home market, we also 
made an upward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) the amount of 
commissions paid in the home market; or (2) the amount of indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the U.S. market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e).
    For all price-to-price comparisons, we made adjustments for 
differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act.
    In accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we based NV, 
to the extent practicable, on sales at the same LOT as the EP. Where 
price-to-price comparisons were made at different LOTs, we made an 
adjustment to NV, in accordance with section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. 
See the ``Level of Trade'' section above.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for 
those shrimp products for which we could not determine the NV based on 
comparison market sales because, as noted in the ``Results of the COP 
Test'' section above, all sales of the comparable products failed the 
COP test, we based NV on CV.
    Sections 773(e)(1) and (2)(A) of the Act provide that CV shall be 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
imported merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For 
each respondent, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication 
based on the methodology described in the ``Cost of Production 
Analysis'' section, above. We based SG&A and profit for each respondent 
on the actual amounts incurred and realized by it in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade for consumption in the home market, in accordance with 
section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in circumstances of sale, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and (a)(8) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home 
market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. See 
19 CFR 351.410(c). We also made an adjustment for Pakfood, when 
applicable, for home market indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 
commissions in EP comparisons. See 19 CFR 351.410(e).

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars for all spot 
transactions by Pakfood and all transactions by TRF, in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank. In addition, Pakfood reported that it purchased forward 
exchange contracts which were used to convert its sales prices into 
home market currency. Under 19 CFR 351.415(b), if a currency 
transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export sale 
under consideration, the Department is directed to use the exchange 
rate specified with respect to such currency in the forward sale 
agreement to convert the foreign currency.\23\ Therefore, for Pakfood 
we used the reported forward exchange rates for currency conversions 
where applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See, e.g., 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 (Dec. 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; see also Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Preliminary 
No Shipment Determination, 76 FR 12025, 12031 (Mar. 4, 2011), 
unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial 
Rescission, and Final No Shipment Determination, 76 FR 41203 (July 
13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2010, through 
January 31, 2011, as follows:
     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ This rate is based on the simple average of the margins 
calculated for those companies selected for individual review. 
Because we cannot apply our normal methodology of calculating a 
weighted-average margin due to requests to protect business-
proprietary information, we find this rate to be the best proxy of 
the actual weighted-average margin determined for the mandatory 
respondents. 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) (Bearings from France).
    \25\ This company notified us that A. Wattanachai Frozen 
Products, on which we also initiated an administrative review, is a 
variation of its company name. The company's legal name is A. 
Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd.
    \26\ This company notified us that Golden Sea Frozen Foods, on 
which we also initiated an administrative review, is a variation of 
its company name. The company's legal name is Golden Sea Frozen 
Foods Co., Ltd.
    \27\ This company notified us that Kitchens of the Ocean 
(Thailand) Ltd., on which we also initiated an administrative 
review, is a variation of its company name. The company's legal name 
is Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand) Ltd.
    \28\ This company notified us that SMP Foods Products Co., Ltd., 
and SMP Food Products Co., Ltd., on which we initiated an 
administrative review, are variations of its company name. The 
company's legal name is SMP Products, Co., Ltd.
    \29\ This company notified us that Surapon Seafood and Surapon 
Seafoods Public Co., Ltd, on which we initiated an administrative 
review, are variations of its company name. The company's legal name 
is Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd.
    \30\ This company notified us that Thai World Imp. & Exp. Co. 
and Thai World Imports & Exports, on which we initiated an 
administrative review, are variations of its company name. The 
company's legal name is Thai World Import & Export Co., Ltd.
    \31\ This company notified us that Siam Union Frozen Foods, on 
which we also initiated an administrative review, is a variation of 
its company name. The company's legal name is The Siam Union Frozen 
Foods Co., Ltd.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Percent
                     Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co.,         0.97
 Ltd./Chaophraya Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Okeanos Co. Ltd./
 Okeanos Food Co. Ltd./Takzin Samut Co., Ltd..................
Thai Royal Frozen Food Co., Ltd...............................      1.98
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following
 Companies: \24\

[[Page 13090]]

 
    A Foods 1991 Co., Ltd./May Ao Co., Ltd./May Ao Foods Co.,       1.48
     Ltd......................................................
    A. Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd.\25\..............      1.48
    A.S. Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd...........................      1.48
    ACU Transport Co., Ltd....................................      1.48
    Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd..............................         *
    Apex Maritime (Thailand) Co., Ltd.........................      1.48
    Apitoon Enterprise Industry Co., Ltd......................      1.48
    Applied DB................................................      1.48
    Asian Seafood Coldstorage (Sriracha)......................      1.48
    Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd./Asian Seafoods      1.48
     Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co./STC Foodpak Ltd.............
    Assoc. Commercial Systems.................................      1.48
    B.S.A. Food Products Co., Ltd.............................      1.48
    Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd................      1.48
    C Y Frozen Food Co., Ltd..................................      1.48
    C.P. Merchandising Co., Ltd...............................      1.48
    Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., Ltd.......................      1.48
    Century Industries Co., Ltd...............................      1.48
    Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd........................      1.48
    Chaiwarut Company Limited.................................      1.48
    Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd....................      1.48
    Chonburi LC...............................................      1.48
    Chue Eie Mong Eak.........................................      1.48
    Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd..........................      1.48
    CP Retailing and Marketing Co., Ltd.......................      1.48
    Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. and/or Crystal Seafood.....      1.48
    Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd................................      1.48
    Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd..........................      1.48
    Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    Dynamic Intertransport Co., Ltd...........................      1.48
    Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd.........................      1.48
    F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited..............................         *
    Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd............................      1.48
    Findus (Thailand) Ltd.....................................      1.48
    Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd..................      1.48
    Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd...........................      1.48
    Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd.........................      1.48
    Gallant Seafoods Corporation..............................      1.48
    Global Maharaja Co., Ltd..................................      1.48
    Golden Sea Frozen Foods Co., Ltd\26\......................      1.48
    Good Fortune Cold Storage Co., Ltd........................      1.48
    Good Luck Product Co., Ltd................................      1.48
    Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.............................         *
    GSE Lining Technology Co., Ltd............................      1.48
    Gulf Coast Crab Intl......................................      1.48
    H.A.M. International Co., Ltd.............................      1.48
    Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd...................................      1.48
    Handy International (Thailand) Co., Ltd...................      1.48
    Heng Seafood Limited Partnership..........................      1.48
    Heritrade.................................................      1.48
    HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd...................................      1.48
    High Way International Co., Ltd...........................      1.48
    I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd............................      1.48
    Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd..........................      1.48
    Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd....................      1.48
    K & U Enterprise Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    K Fresh...................................................      1.48
    K. D. Trading Co., Ltd....................................      1.48
    K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd................................      1.48
    KF Foods..................................................      1.48
    Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd...      1.48
    Kibun Trdg................................................      1.48
    Kingfisher Holdings Ltd...................................      1.48
    Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand) Ltd\27\.................      1.48
    Klang Co., Ltd............................................      1.48
    Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd............................      1.48
    Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.............................      1.48
    Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    Leo Transports............................................      1.48
    Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.............................      1.48
    Lucky Union Foods Co., Ltd................................         *
    Maersk Line...............................................      1.48
    Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd..............................      1.48
    Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd.........................      1.48

[[Page 13091]]

 
    Marine Gold Products Co., Ltd.............................      1.48
    Merit Asia Foodstuff Co., Ltd.............................      1.48
    Merkur Co., Ltd...........................................      1.48
    Ming Chao Ind Thailand....................................      1.48
    N&N Foods Co., Ltd........................................      1.48
    Namprik Maesri Ltd. Part..................................         *
    Narong Seafood Co., Ltd...................................      1.48
    Nongmon SMJ Products......................................      1.48
    NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd...............................      1.48
    Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Thai-Ger Marine Co., Ltd...      1.48
    Pacific Queen Co., Ltd....................................      1.48
    Penta Impex Co., Ltd......................................      1.48
    Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine..............................      1.48
    Piti Seafoods Co., Ltd....................................      1.48
    Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd..........................      1.48
    Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd.........................      1.48
    Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd................................      1.48
    Rayong Coldstorage (1987) Co., Ltd........................      1.48
    S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd..............................      1.48
    S&P Aquarium..............................................      1.48
    S&P Syndicate Public Company Ltd..........................         *
    S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd........................      1.48
    S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd. and/or S.            1.48
     Khonkaen Food Ind Public.................................
    Samui Foods Company Limited...............................      1.48
    SCT Co., Ltd..............................................      1.48
    Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    SEA NT'L CO., LTD.........................................      1.48
    Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd..............................      1.48
    Seafresh Fisheries/Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd......      1.48
    Search & Serve............................................      1.48
    Shianlin Bangkok Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    Shing Fu Seaproducts Development Co.......................      1.48
    Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    Siam Intersea Co., Ltd....................................      1.48
    Siam Marine Products Co. Ltd..............................      1.48
    Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd...........................      1.48
    Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd......................         *
    Smile Heart Foods Co. Ltd.................................      1.48
    SMP Products, Co., Ltd\28\................................      1.48
    Southport Seafood Co., Ltd................................      1.48
    Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd................................      1.48
    Starfoods Industries Co., Ltd.............................      1.48
    Suntechthai Intertrading Co., Ltd.........................      1.48
    Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd...........................      1.48
    Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd\29\/Surat Seafoods Co., Ltd.      1.48
    Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd.......................      1.48
    Suree Interfoods Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd...................................      1.48
    Tanaya International Co., Ltd.............................      1.48
    Tanaya Intl...............................................      1.48
    Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    Teppitak Seafood Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd............................      1.48
    Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd...........................      1.48
    Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd...................      1.48
    Thai Ocean Venture Co., Ltd...............................      1.48
    Thai Patana Frozen........................................      1.48
    Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd........................      1.48
    Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd.................................      1.48
    Thai Union Frozen Products Public Company Ltd./Thai Union       1.48
     Seafood Co., Ltd.........................................
    Thai Union Manufacturing Company Limited..................         *
    Thai World Import & Export Co., Ltd\30\...................      1.48
    Thai Yoo Ltd., Part.......................................      1.48
    The Siam Union Frozen Foods Co., Ltd\31\..................      1.48
    The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd./Bright Sea Co., Ltd...      1.48
    Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd....................      1.48
    Transamut Food Co., Ltd...................................      1.48
    Tung Lieng Trdg...........................................      1.48
    United Cold Storage Co., Ltd..............................      1.48
    V Thai Food Product.......................................         *
    Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd................................      1.48
    Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd..............................      1.48
    YHS Singapore Pte.........................................      1.48

[[Page 13092]]

 
    ZAFCO TRDG................................................      1.48
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    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). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later 
than the later of 30 days after the date of publication of this notice 
or one week after the issuance of the last verification report for TRF. 
Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be 
filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 
See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal 
briefs in this proceeding are encouraged 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)(2) and (d)(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, 
filed electronically using Import Administration's Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). 
An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its 
entirety by the Department's electronic records system, IA ACCESS, by 5 
p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 30 days after 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. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to 
those raised in the respective case briefs. 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 completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department will 
issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject 
to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of this review.
    Pakfood and TRF reported the entered value for certain of their 
U.S. sales. We will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty 
assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of 
these sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    Pakfood and TRF did not report the entered value for the remainder 
of their U.S. sales. We will calculate importer-specific per-unit duty 
assessment rates for these sales by aggregating the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this 
amount by the total quantity of those sales. With respect to Pakfood's 
and TRF's U.S. sales of shrimp with sauce for which no entered value 
was reported, we will include the total quantity of the merchandise 
with sauce in the denominator of the calculation of the importer-
specific rate because CBP will apply the per-unit duty rate to the 
total quantity of merchandise entered, including the sauce weight. 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 
will calculate importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the 
estimated entered value.
    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we 
will calculate an assessment rate based on the simple average of the 
margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review. 
In situations where we cannot apply our normal methodology of 
calculating a weighted-average margin due to requests to protect 
business-proprietary information, we use a simple average when it 
yields the best proxy of the weighted-average margin as a matter of 
practice. See Bearings from France, 75 FR at 53663.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis. 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. The final results of this review 
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries 
of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for 
future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. See 751(a)(2)(C) 
of the Act.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy Notice. This clarification will 
apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by 
companies included in these final results of review for which the 
reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the 
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment 
Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise 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)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for each specific 
company listed above will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.34 percent, the all-
others rate made effective by the Section 129

[[Page 13093]]

Determination.\32\ These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall 
remain in effect until further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Effective January 16, 2009, there is no longer a cash 
deposit requirement for certain producers/exporters in accordance 
with the Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in United 
States Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Thailand: Notice of 
Determination under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 74 FR 5638 (Jan. 30, 2009) (Section 
129 Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this 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 administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: February 28, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-5263 Filed 3-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P