Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 15039-15042 [2012-6201]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices
For a copy of the system of
records please mail requests to: Counsel
to the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 7892,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Counsel to the Inspector General, U.S.
Department of Commerce, Room 7892,
1401 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 19, 2012, the DOC published
and requested comments on proposed
amendments to the Privacy Act System
of Records titled, at that time,
‘‘Investigative and Inspection Records—
COMMERCE/DEPT–12.’’ Upon
amendment, the system will be titled
‘‘COMMERCE/DEPT–12, OIG
Investigative Records.’’ The amendment
serves to generally update the system of
records notice by, among other things,
updating OIG’s practices for
electronically storing, retrieving, and
safeguarding records in the system and
updating OIG routine uses. No
comments were received in response to
the request for comments. By this
notice, the DOC is adopting the
proposed amendment to the system as
final without changes effective March
14, 2012.
ADDRESSES:
Dated: March 8, 2012.
Jonathan R. Cantor,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Chief Privacy
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012–6145 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–552–801]
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final
Results and Partial Rescission of the
Seventh Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 9, 2011, the
Department of Commerce
(‘‘Department’’) published the
Preliminary Results of the seventh
administrative review and sixth new
shipper review of the antidumping duty
order on certain frozen fish fillets
(‘‘frozen fish fillets’’) from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’).1 We
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
1 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results
and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Antidumping
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Mar 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
gave interested parties an opportunity to
comment on the Preliminary Results
and, based upon our analysis of the
comments and information received, we
made changes to the margin calculations
for the final results of these reviews.
The final weighted-average margins are
listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of the
Reviews’’ section of this notice. The
period of review (‘‘POR’’) is August 1,
2009, through July 31, 2010.
DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Alexis Polovina or Javier Barrientos,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3927 or (202) 482–
2243, respectively.
Case History
As noted above, on September 9,
2011, the Department published the
Preliminary Results of this
administrative review. We extended the
deadlines for submission of surrogate
value (‘‘SV’’) comments and case briefs
multiple times based on requests from
interested parties. On December 29,
2011, the Department fully extended the
time limit for completion of the final
results of this administrative review.2
On November 15, 2011, and January 6,
2012, parties submitted SV comments
and SV rebuttal comments, respectively.
On January 13, 2012, and January 27,
2012, parties submitted case and
rebuttal briefs, respectively.
On December 30, 2011, Petitioners 3
submitted comments on Vinh Hoan
Corporation’s (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’) factors of
production (‘‘FOP’’) methodology. On
January 9, 2012, the Department placed
certain factual information from the
sixth administrative review regarding
Vinh Hoan on the record, and also
issued a supplemental questionnaire to
Vinh Hoan. On January 18, 2012, Vinh
Hoan responded to the supplemental
questionnaire. On February 1 and
February 6, 2012, parties submitted case
and rebuttal briefs, respectively,
pertaining to Vinh Hoan’s FOP
methodology. On December 29, 2011,
Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 55872
(September 9, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’).
2 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time
Limit for the Final Results of the Seventh
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR
81913 (December 29, 2010).
3 This includes: Catfish Farmers of America and
individual U.S. catfish processors, America’s Catch,
Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC dba Country
Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest
Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company,
Pride of the Pond, and Simmons Farm Raised
Catfish, Inc. (‘‘Petitioners’’)
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15039
January 24, 2012, and February 21,
2012, Petitioners and/or their counsel
met with officials from the Department.
On February 16, 2012, counsel for
certain Respondents 4 and VASEP,5 an
interested party, met with officials from
the Department. As a result of our
analysis, we have made changes to the
Preliminary Results.
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is
frozen fish fillets, including regular,
shank, and strip fillets and portions
thereof, whether or not breaded or
marinated, of the species Pangasius
Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus
(also known as Pangasius Pangasius),
and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish
fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish.
The fillet products covered by the scope
include boneless fillets with the belly
flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless
fillets with the belly flap removed
(‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets
cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’),
which include fillets cut into strips,
chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other
shape. Specifically excluded from the
scope are frozen whole fish (whether or
not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen
belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole
dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and
eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, crosssection cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are
the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise
will be hereinafter referred to as frozen
‘‘basa’’ and ‘‘tra’’ fillets, which are the
Vietnamese common names for these
species of fish. These products are
classifiable under tariff article codes
0304.29.6033, 0304.62.0020,
0305.59.0000, 0305.59.4000,
1604.19.2000, 1604.19.2100,
1604.19.3000, 1604.19.3100,
1604.19.4000, 1604.19.4100,
1604.19.5000, 1604.19.5100,
1604.19.6100, 1604.19.8100 (Frozen
Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius
including basa and tra) of the
Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).6 The order
4 These companies include: Vinh Hoan; Vinh
Quang Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Vinh Quang’’); QVD
Food Company Ltd. (‘‘QVD’’) (the Department is
treating QVD, QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd., and
Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. as a single entity in this
review); and certain separate rate companies.
5 Vietnam Association of Seafood Exports and
Producers.
6 Until July 1, 2004, these products were
classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30
(Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish
Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater
Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets)
of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these
products were classifiable under tariff article code
0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species
Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. On
March 2, 2011, the Department added two HTSUS
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
Continued
14MRN1
15040
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices
covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the
above specification, regardless of tariff
classification. Although the HTSUS
subheading is provided for convenience
and customs purposes, our written
description of the scope of the order is
dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and
rebuttal briefs by parties are addressed
in the ‘‘Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Issues and Decision Memorandum for
the Final Results of the Seventh
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review,’’ dated concurrently with this
notice (‘‘Issues & Decision Memo’’), and
which is hereby adopted by this notice.
A list of the issues which parties raised
is attached to this notice as an
Appendix. Parties can find a complete
discussion of all issues raised in this
review and the corresponding
recommendation in this public
memorandum which is on file
electronically via Import
Administration’s Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized
Electronic Services System (‘‘IA
ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is
available in the Central Records Unit
(‘‘CRU’’) of the main Commerce
Building, Room 7046. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and
Decision Memorandum is accessible on
the Web at https://trade.gov/frn. The
paper copy and electronic versions of
the Issues and Decision Memorandum
are identical in content.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Final Partial Rescission
In the Preliminary Results, the
Department preliminarily rescinded the
review with respect to four companies:
(1) IDI; (2) CL–Fish; (3) THIMACO; and
(4) NTSF.7 These companies reported
that they had no shipments of subject
merchandise to the United States during
the POR. As we stated in the
Preliminary Results, our examination of
shipment data from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) for these
companies confirmed that there were no
entries of subject merchandise from
them during the POR.8 The Department
did not receive any comments regarding
numbers at the request of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (‘‘CBP’’): 1604.19.2000 and 1604
19.3000. On January 30, 2012, the Department
added eight HTSUS numbers at the request of U.S.
CBP: 0304.62.0020, 0305.59.0000, 1604.19.2100,
1604.19.3100, 1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5100,
1604.19.6100, 1604.19.8100.
7 International Development & Investment
Corporation (‘‘IDI’’); Cuu Long Fish Joint Stock
Company (‘‘CL Fish’’); Thien Ma Seafood Co., Ltd.
(‘‘THIMACO’’); and NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock
Company (‘‘NTSF’’).
8 See Preliminary Results.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Mar 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
the preliminary rescission for any
company claiming no shipments.
Therefore, we are rescinding the
administrative review with respect to
these four companies.
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record and
comments received from interested
parties regarding our Preliminary
Results, we have made certain revisions
to the margin calculation for Vinh Hoan,
and QVD. For the reasons explained in
the I&D Memo at Comment 1, we have
changed our primary surrogate country
selection from Indonesia to Bangladesh.
For all other changes to the calculations
of Vinh Hoan and QVD, see the I&D
Memo and company-specific analysis
memorandum. For changes to the SVs,
see the I&D Memo and ‘‘Memorandum
to the File, through Matthew Renkey,
Acting Program Manager, AC/CVD
Operations, Office 9, from Javier
Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst, and
Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 9, Seventh
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Surrogate Values for the Final Results,’’
dated March 7, 2012.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the
Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam
has been treated as an NME country. In
accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of
the Act, any determination that a foreign
country is an NME country shall remain
in effect until revoked by the
administering authority.9 None of the
parties to this proceeding have
contested such treatment. Accordingly,
we calculated NV in accordance with
section 773(c) of the Act, which applies
to NME countries.
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME
countries, the Department holds a
rebuttable presumption that all
companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus,
should be assessed a single antidumping
duty rate. It is the Department’s policy
to assign all exporters of subject
merchandise in an NME country this
single rate unless an exporter can
demonstrate that it is sufficiently
independent so as to be entitled to a
separate rate.10 In the Preliminary
9 See Notice of Final Results of Administrative
Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 73 FR 15479 (March
17, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (‘‘3rd AR Final Results’’).
10 See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at
Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Results, we determined that in addition
to the mandatory respondents, the
Separate-Rate Applicants 11 also met the
criteria for separate-rate status. The
separate rate is determined based on the
estimated weighted-average
antidumping margins established for
exporters and producers individually
investigated, excluding zero and de
minimis margins or margins based
entirely on AFA.12
The statute and the Department’s
regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to
individual companies not selected for
examination when the Department
limited its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to
section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally
we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of
the Act, which provides instructions for
calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance when
calculating the rate for respondents we
did not examine in an administrative
review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act
articulates a preference that we are not
to calculate an all-others rate using any
zero or de minimis margins or any
margins based entirely on facts
available. Accordingly, the
Department’s usual practice has been to
average the rates for the selected
companies, excluding zero, de minimis
and rates based entirely on facts
available.13 Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the
Act also provides that, where all
margins are zero, de minimis, or based
entirely on facts available, we may use
‘‘any reasonable method’’ for assigning
the rate to non-selected respondents,
including ‘‘averaging the estimated
weighted-average dumping margins
determined for the exporters and
producers individually investigated.’’
For this administrative review, the
Department has calculated positive
margins for one mandatory respondent,
Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as
further developed in Notice of Final Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide
from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585
(May 2, 1994).
11 These companies include: (1) Anvifish Co.,
Ltd.; (2) Anvifish JSC; (3) Acomfish; (4) Bien Dong
Seafood; (5) Binh An; (6) CASEAMEX; (7) ESS LLC;
(8) East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.; (9)
Hiep Thanh; (10) South Vina; and (11) Vinh Quang
(collectively, ‘‘Separate-Rate Applicants’’).
12 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, 52275
(September 9, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6.
13 See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United
Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Review in
Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008) and
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at
Comment 16.
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices
QVD. Accordingly, consistent with our
practice, for these final results, the
Department has preliminarily
established a margin for the SeparateRate Applicants based on the rate
calculated for one of the mandatory
respondents, QVD. The rate established
for the Separate-Rate Applicants is a
per-unit rate of $0.03 dollars per
kilogram. Entities receiving this rate are
identified by name in the ‘‘Preliminary
Results of Review’’ section of this
notice.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Vietnam-Wide Rate and Vietnam-Wide
Entity
As noted in the Preliminary Results,
because some parties for which a review
was requested did not apply for separate
rate status, the Vietnam-Wide entity is
considered to be under review in this
segment of the proceeding. In NME
proceedings, ‘‘ ‘rates’ may consist of a
single dumping margin applicable to all
exporters and producers.’’ See 19 CFR
351.107(d). As explained above in the
‘‘Separate Rates’’ section, all companies
within Vietnam are considered to be
subject to government control unless
they are able to demonstrate an absence
of government control with respect to
their export activities. Such companies
are thus assigned a single antidumping
duty rate distinct from the separate
rate(s) determined for companies that
are found to be independent of
government control with respect to their
export activities. We consider the
influence that the government has been
found to have over the economy to
warrant determining a rate for the entity
that is distinct from the rates found for
companies that have provided sufficient
evidence to establish that they operate
freely with respect to their export
activities. See Notice of Final
Antidumping Duty Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Affirmative Critical Circumstances:
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR
37116 (June 23, 2003). In this regard, we
note that no party has submitted
evidence of the proceeding to
demonstrate that such government
influence is no longer present or that
our treatment of the NME entity is
otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are
assigning the entity’s current rate of
$2.11 per kilogram, the rate determined
for the Vietnam-wide entity in this
proceeding. See, e.g., Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and New Shipper Reviews, 75
FR 12726 (March 17, 2010).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Mar 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
Final Results of the Review
The weighted-average dumping
margins for the POR are asfollows:
Manufacturer/exporter
(1) Vinh Hoan 14 .......................
(2) QVD ....................................
(3) Anvifish Co., Ltd ..................
(4) Anvifish JSC ........................
(5) Acomfish .............................
(6) Bien Dong Seafood .............
(7) Binh An ...............................
(8) CASEAMEX ........................
(9) ESS LLC .............................
(10) East Sea Seafoods Joint
Venture Co., Ltd ....................
(11) Hiep Thanh .......................
(12) South Vina ........................
(13) Vinh Quang .......................
Vietnam-Wide Rate ..................
assessment instructions to CBP 15 days
after the date of publication of these
final results of review.
Weightedaverage
margin
(dollars per
kilogram)
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
2.11
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the
Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the
Department will determine, and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’)
shall assess, antidumping duties on all
appropriate entries of subject
merchandise in accordance with the
final results of this review. For
assessment purposes, we calculated
importer (or customer)-specific
assessment rates for merchandise
subject to this review. Where
appropriate, we calculated an ad
valorem rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping
margins for reviewed sales to that party
by the total entered values associated
with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this
basis, we will direct CBP to assess the
resulting ad valorem rate against the
entered customs values for the subject
merchandise. Where appropriate, we
calculated a per-unit rate for each
importer (or customer) by dividing the
total dumping margins for reviewed
sales to that party by the total sales
quantity associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates
calculated on this basis, we will direct
CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate
against the entered quantity of the
subject merchandise. Where an importer
(or customer)-specific assessment rate is
de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent),
the Department will instruct CBP to
assess that importer (or customer’s)
entries of subject merchandise without
regard to antidumping duties, in
accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2).
The Department intends to issue
14 This rate is applicable to the Vinh Hoan Group
which includes Vinh Hoan, Van Duc, and VD TG.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15041
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of the subject merchandise from
Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from
warehouse, for consumption on or after
the publication date, as provided by
section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For
Vinh Hoan, QVD, and the Separate-Rate
Applicants, the cash deposit rate will be
their respective rates established in the
final results of this review, except if the
rate is zero or de minimis no cash
deposit will be required; (2) for
previously investigated or reviewed
Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese
exporters not listed above that have
separate rates, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the exporter-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3)
for all Vietnamese exporters of subject
merchandise which have not been
found to be entitled to a separate rate,
the cash deposit rate will be the
Vietnam-Wide rate of $2.11 per
kilogram; and (4) for all non-Vietnamese
exporters of subject merchandise which
have not received their own rate, the
cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the Vietnamese exporters
that supplied that non-Vietnamese
exporter. These deposit requirements,
when imposed, shall remain in effect
until further notice.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final
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 POR. Failure to
comply with this requirement could
result in the Department’s presumption
that reimbursement of antidumping
duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping
duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary
information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification
of the return/destruction of APO
materials or conversion to judicial
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
15042
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and terms of an APO is a violation
which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this
administrative review and notice in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 7, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
Appendix I—Issues & Decision
Memorandum
COMMENT I: SELECTION OF SURROGATE
COUNTRY
A. Economic Comparability
B. Significant Producer of the Comparable
Merchandise
C. Data Considerations
COMMENT II: SURROGATE VALUES
A. Financial Ratios
1. Selection of Surrogate Companies
B. By-Products Offsets
1. Fish Waste
2. Fish Oil
3. Fresh Broken Fillets
4. Frozen Broken Fillets
5. Fish Meal
C. Farming Factors
1. Fingerlings, Fish Feed, Nutrients, Lime
D. Other Surrogate Values
1. Labor
2. Salt
3. STPP, CO Gas, PE Bags, Cartons, Tape,
Label, Plastic Sheet, Banding, Diesel,
Coal
4. Brokerage & Handling
COMMENT III: ZEROING
Company-Specific Issues
COMMENT IV: VINH HOAN
A. Fish Consumption
B. Revocation
C. Farming Water
COMMENT V: CONSIDERATION OF VINH
QUANG AS A VOLUNTARY
RESPONDENT
COMMENT VI: SOUTH VINA SEPARATE
RATE CERTIFICATION
[FR Doc. 2012–6201 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[A–570–929]
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes
From the People’s Republic of China:
Amended Final Results of the First
Administrative Review of the
Antidumping Duty Order
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2012.
SUMMARY: On September 13, 2011, the
Department of Commerce
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Mar 13, 2012
Jkt 226001
(‘‘Department’’) published the final
results of the antidumping duty
administrative review of small diameter
graphite electrodes (‘‘SDGE’’) from the
People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’),
covering the period August 21, 2008,
through January 31, 2010.1 We are
amending our Final Results to correct
certain ministerial errors made in the
calculation of the antidumping duty
margins for Fushun Jinly Petrochemical
Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fushun Jinly’’);
Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Beijing Fangda’’), Fangda Carbon New
Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fangda Carbon’’),
Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘‘Fushun
Carbon’’), and Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Hefei’’); and Xinghe County Muzi Co.,
Ltd. (‘‘Muzi’’) pursuant to section 751(h)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lindsey Novom or Frances Veith, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 8, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5256 or (202) 482–
4295, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 13, 2011, the
Department published its affirmative
final results in this proceeding.2 On
September 19, 2011, Fushun Jinly and
Beijing Fangda, Chengdu Rongguang
Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rongguang’’), Fangda
Carbon, Fushun Carbon, and Hefei
(collectively ‘‘the Fangda Group’’),
mandatory respondents, submitted
ministerial error allegations and
requested, pursuant to 19 CFR
351.224(c), that the Department correct
the alleged ministerial errors in the
calculation of Fushun Jinly and the
Fangda Group’s dumping margins.
Muzi, a separate rate company, also
submitted ministerial error allegations
on September 19, 2011. SGL Carbon
LLC and Superior Graphite Co.
(‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted rebuttal
comments on September 23, 2011.
Before the Department could take action
on the alleged ministerial errors,
Petitioners filed a summons and
complaint with the U.S. Court of
International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) challenging
the Final Results, which vested the CIT
with jurisdiction over the administrative
proceeding. On February 22, 2012, the
1 See
Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from
the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the
First Administrative Review of the Antidumping
Duty Order and Final Rescission of the
Administrative Review, in Part, 76 FR 56397
(September 13, 2011) (‘‘Final Results’’).
2 See Final Results.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
CIT granted the Department leave to
publish these amended final results to
correct certain ministerial errors.3
Ministerial Errors
A ministerial error as defined in
section 751(h) of the Act includes
‘‘errors in addition, subtraction, or other
arithmetic function, clerical error
resulting from inaccurate copying,
duplication, or the like, and any other
type of unintentional error which the
administering authority considers
ministerial.’’ 4
After analyzing all interested party
comments and rebuttals, we have
determined, in accordance with section
751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e),
that we made certain ministerial errors
in our calculations for the Final Results.
For a detailed discussion of these
ministerial errors, as well as the
Department’s analysis of the errors and
allegations, see the Memorandum to the
File, ‘‘First Administrative Review of
the Antidumping Duty Order on Small
Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the
People’s Republic of China: Analysis of
Ministerial Error Allegations,’’ dated
concurrently with this notice
(‘‘Ministerial Error Memo’’).
Additionally, in the Final Results, we
determined that Muzi qualified for a
separate rate.5 Because the cash deposit
rate for Muzi was based on the
calculated rate of the mandatory
respondents, Fushun Jinly and the
Fangda Group, and the margins for both
companies have changed since the Final
Results, the separate rate has changed as
well.6 Finally, we have corrected a
misspelling of Muzi’s full name. The
amended weighted-average dumping
margins are as follows:
SDGEs from the PRC
Exporters
Percent
margin
Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co.,
Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon
Co., Ltd., Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd
Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd ..............................
Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co.,
Ltd .............................................
1.10
39.83
16.00
Notification of Interested Parties
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
3 See SGL Carbon LLC v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 11–00389 (Ct. Int’l Trade February 22,
2012) (order granting the Department leave to
publish amended final results correcting ministerial
errors no later than March 16, 2012).
4 See also 19 CFR 351.224(f).
5 See Final Results.
6 See Ministerial Error Memo.
E:\FR\FM\14MRN1.SGM
14MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15039-15042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6201]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-552-801]
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Seventh
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 9, 2011, the Department of Commerce
(``Department'') published the Preliminary Results of the seventh
administrative review and sixth new shipper review of the antidumping
duty order on certain frozen fish fillets (``frozen fish fillets'')
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam'').\1\ We gave
interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results
and, based upon our analysis of the comments and information received,
we made changes to the margin calculations for the final results of
these reviews. The final weighted-average margins are listed below in
the ``Final Results of the Reviews'' section of this notice. The period
of review (``POR'') is August 1, 2009, through July 31, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the
Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 55872
(September 9, 2011) (``Preliminary Results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alexis Polovina or Javier Barrientos,
AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
3927 or (202) 482-2243, respectively.
Case History
As noted above, on September 9, 2011, the Department published the
Preliminary Results of this administrative review. We extended the
deadlines for submission of surrogate value (``SV'') comments and case
briefs multiple times based on requests from interested parties. On
December 29, 2011, the Department fully extended the time limit for
completion of the final results of this administrative review.\2\ On
November 15, 2011, and January 6, 2012, parties submitted SV comments
and SV rebuttal comments, respectively. On January 13, 2012, and
January 27, 2012, parties submitted case and rebuttal briefs,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Extension of Time Limit for the Final Results of the
Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 81913
(December 29, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 30, 2011, Petitioners \3\ submitted comments on Vinh
Hoan Corporation's (``Vinh Hoan'') factors of production (``FOP'')
methodology. On January 9, 2012, the Department placed certain factual
information from the sixth administrative review regarding Vinh Hoan on
the record, and also issued a supplemental questionnaire to Vinh Hoan.
On January 18, 2012, Vinh Hoan responded to the supplemental
questionnaire. On February 1 and February 6, 2012, parties submitted
case and rebuttal briefs, respectively, pertaining to Vinh Hoan's FOP
methodology. On December 29, 2011, January 24, 2012, and February 21,
2012, Petitioners and/or their counsel met with officials from the
Department. On February 16, 2012, counsel for certain Respondents \4\
and VASEP,\5\ an interested party, met with officials from the
Department. As a result of our analysis, we have made changes to the
Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This includes: Catfish Farmers of America and individual
U.S. catfish processors, America's Catch, Consolidated Catfish
Companies, LLC dba Country Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish,
Inc., Harvest Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, Pride
of the Pond, and Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, Inc. (``Petitioners'')
\4\ These companies include: Vinh Hoan; Vinh Quang Fisheries
Corporation (``Vinh Quang''); QVD Food Company Ltd. (``QVD'') (the
Department is treating QVD, QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd., and Thuan
Hung Co., Ltd. as a single entity in this review); and certain
separate rate companies.
\5\ Vietnam Association of Seafood Exports and Producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scope of the Order
The product covered by the order is frozen fish fillets, including
regular, shank, and strip fillets and portions thereof, whether or not
breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius
Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius), and Pangasius
Micronemus. Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The
fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the
belly flap intact (``regular'' fillets), boneless fillets with the
belly flap removed (``shank'' fillets), boneless shank fillets cut into
strips (``fillet strips/finger''), which include fillets cut into
strips, chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically
excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed),
frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole dressed fish
are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-
section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject
merchandise will be hereinafter referred to as frozen ``basa'' and
``tra'' fillets, which are the Vietnamese common names for these
species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff article
codes 0304.29.6033, 0304.62.0020, 0305.59.0000, 0305.59.4000,
1604.19.2000, 1604.19.2100, 1604.19.3000, 1604.19.3100, 1604.19.4000,
1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5000, 1604.19.5100, 1604.19.6100, 1604.19.8100
(Frozen Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius including basa and tra)
of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS'').\6\
The order
[[Page 15040]]
covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the above specification,
regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS subheading is
provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description
of the scope of the order is dispositive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Until July 1, 2004, these products were classifiable under
tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 (Frozen Catfish Fillets),
0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen
Freshwater Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) of
the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these products were classifiable
under tariff article code 0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the
species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. On March 2,
2011, the Department added two HTSUS numbers at the request of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (``CBP''): 1604.19.2000 and 1604
19.3000. On January 30, 2012, the Department added eight HTSUS
numbers at the request of U.S. CBP: 0304.62.0020, 0305.59.0000,
1604.19.2100, 1604.19.3100, 1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5100,
1604.19.6100, 1604.19.8100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis of Comments Received
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties are
addressed in the ``Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final
Results of the Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,'' dated
concurrently with this notice (``Issues & Decision Memo''), and which
is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues which parties
raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix. Parties can find a
complete discussion of all issues raised in this review and the
corresponding recommendation in this public memorandum which is on file
electronically via Import Administration's Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (``IA
ACCESS''). Access to IA ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit
(``CRU'') of the main Commerce Building, Room 7046. In addition, a
complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum is accessible on
the Web at https://trade.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic versions
of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.
Final Partial Rescission
In the Preliminary Results, the Department preliminarily rescinded
the review with respect to four companies: (1) IDI; (2) CL-Fish; (3)
THIMACO; and (4) NTSF.\7\ These companies reported that they had no
shipments of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
As we stated in the Preliminary Results, our examination of shipment
data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (``CBP'') for these
companies confirmed that there were no entries of subject merchandise
from them during the POR.\8\ The Department did not receive any
comments regarding the preliminary rescission for any company claiming
no shipments. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review
with respect to these four companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ International Development & Investment Corporation
(``IDI''); Cuu Long Fish Joint Stock Company (``CL Fish''); Thien Ma
Seafood Co., Ltd. (``THIMACO''); and NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock
Company (``NTSF'').
\8\ See Preliminary Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes Since the Preliminary Results
Based on a review of the record and comments received from
interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have made
certain revisions to the margin calculation for Vinh Hoan, and QVD. For
the reasons explained in the I&D Memo at Comment 1, we have changed our
primary surrogate country selection from Indonesia to Bangladesh. For
all other changes to the calculations of Vinh Hoan and QVD, see the I&D
Memo and company-specific analysis memorandum. For changes to the SVs,
see the I&D Memo and ``Memorandum to the File, through Matthew Renkey,
Acting Program Manager, AC/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Javier
Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst, and Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 9, Seventh Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Final Results,'' dated March 7, 2012.
Non-Market Economy Country Status
In every case conducted by the Department involving Vietnam,
Vietnam has been treated as an NME country. In accordance with section
771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any determination that a foreign country is
an NME country shall remain in effect until revoked by the
administering authority.\9\ None of the parties to this proceeding have
contested such treatment. Accordingly, we calculated NV in accordance
with section 773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Notice of Final Results of Administrative Review:
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,
73 FR 15479 (March 17, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum (``3rd AR Final Results'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate Rates
In proceedings involving NME countries, the Department holds a
rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are
subject to government control and, thus, should be assessed a single
antidumping duty rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all
exporters of subject merchandise in an NME country this single rate
unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent
so as to be entitled to a separate rate.\10\ In the Preliminary
Results, we determined that in addition to the mandatory respondents,
the Separate-Rate Applicants \11\ also met the criteria for separate-
rate status. The separate rate is determined based on the estimated
weighted-average antidumping margins established for exporters and
producers individually investigated, excluding zero and de minimis
margins or margins based entirely on AFA.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than
Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR
20588 (May 6, 1991), as further developed in Notice of Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994).
\11\ These companies include: (1) Anvifish Co., Ltd.; (2)
Anvifish JSC; (3) Acomfish; (4) Bien Dong Seafood; (5) Binh An; (6)
CASEAMEX; (7) ESS LLC; (8) East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co.,
Ltd.; (9) Hiep Thanh; (10) South Vina; and (11) Vinh Quang
(collectively, ``Separate-Rate Applicants'').
\12\ 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, 52275
(September 9, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum
at Comment 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The statute and the Department's regulations do not address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to individual companies not
selected for examination when the Department limited its examination in
an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act.
Generally we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which
provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an
investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for respondents
we did not examine in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of
the Act articulates a preference that we are not to calculate an all-
others rate using any zero or de minimis margins or any margins based
entirely on facts available. Accordingly, the Department's usual
practice has been to average the rates for the selected companies,
excluding zero, de minimis and rates based entirely on facts
available.\13\ Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides that,
where all margins are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts
available, we may use ``any reasonable method'' for assigning the rate
to non-selected respondents, including ``averaging the estimated
weighted-average dumping margins determined for the exporters and
producers individually investigated.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Review in Part, 73 FR
52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008) and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this administrative review, the Department has calculated
positive margins for one mandatory respondent,
[[Page 15041]]
QVD. Accordingly, consistent with our practice, for these final
results, the Department has preliminarily established a margin for the
Separate-Rate Applicants based on the rate calculated for one of the
mandatory respondents, QVD. The rate established for the Separate-Rate
Applicants is a per-unit rate of $0.03 dollars per kilogram. Entities
receiving this rate are identified by name in the ``Preliminary Results
of Review'' section of this notice.
Vietnam-Wide Rate and Vietnam-Wide Entity
As noted in the Preliminary Results, because some parties for which
a review was requested did not apply for separate rate status, the
Vietnam-Wide entity is considered to be under review in this segment of
the proceeding. In NME proceedings, `` `rates' may consist of a single
dumping margin applicable to all exporters and producers.'' See 19 CFR
351.107(d). As explained above in the ``Separate Rates'' section, all
companies within Vietnam are considered to be subject to government
control unless they are able to demonstrate an absence of government
control with respect to their export activities. Such companies are
thus assigned a single antidumping duty rate distinct from the separate
rate(s) determined for companies that are found to be independent of
government control with respect to their export activities. We consider
the influence that the government has been found to have over the
economy to warrant determining a rate for the entity that is distinct
from the rates found for companies that have provided sufficient
evidence to establish that they operate freely with respect to their
export activities. See Notice of Final Antidumping Duty Determination
of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Critical
Circumstances: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam, 68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). In this regard, we note that
no party has submitted evidence of the proceeding to demonstrate that
such government influence is no longer present or that our treatment of
the NME entity is otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are assigning the
entity's current rate of $2.11 per kilogram, the rate determined for
the Vietnam-wide entity in this proceeding. See, e.g., Certain Frozen
Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of
the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 75
FR 12726 (March 17, 2010).
Final Results of the Review
The weighted-average dumping margins for the POR are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ This rate is applicable to the Vinh Hoan Group which
includes Vinh Hoan, Van Duc, and VD TG.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted-
average
margin
Manufacturer/exporter (dollars
per
kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Vinh Hoan \14\......................................... 0.00
(2) QVD.................................................... 0.03
(3) Anvifish Co., Ltd...................................... 0.03
(4) Anvifish JSC........................................... 0.03
(5) Acomfish............................................... 0.03
(6) Bien Dong Seafood...................................... 0.03
(7) Binh An................................................ 0.03
(8) CASEAMEX............................................... 0.03
(9) ESS LLC................................................ 0.03
(10) East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.............. 0.03
(11) Hiep Thanh............................................ 0.03
(12) South Vina............................................ 0.03
(13) Vinh Quang............................................ 0.03
Vietnam-Wide Rate.......................................... 2.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment Rates
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b),
the Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(``CBP'') shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries
of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this
review. For assessment purposes, we calculated importer (or customer)-
specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where
appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or
customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to
that party by the total entered values associated with those
transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we
will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the
entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where appropriate,
we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or customer) by
dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by
the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty-
assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess
the resulting per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject
merchandise. Where an importer (or customer)-specific assessment rate
is de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), the Department will
instruct CBP to assess that importer (or customer's) entries of subject
merchandise without regard to antidumping duties, in accordance with 19
CFR 351.106(c)(2). The Department intends to issue assessment
instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these
final results of review.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this administrative review for all
shipments of the subject merchandise from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn
from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as
provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Vinh Hoan, QVD,
and the Separate-Rate Applicants, the cash deposit rate will be their
respective rates established in the final results of this review,
except if the rate is zero or de minimis no cash deposit will be
required; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Vietnamese and
non-Vietnamese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the
cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate
published for the most recent period; (3) for all Vietnamese exporters
of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a
separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the Vietnam-Wide rate of
$2.11 per kilogram; and (4) for all non-Vietnamese exporters of subject
merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit
rate will be the rate applicable to the Vietnamese exporters that
supplied that non-Vietnamese exporter. These deposit requirements, when
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
Reimbursement of Duties
This notice also serves as a final 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 POR. Failure to comply with this
requirement could result in the Department's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent
assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
Administrative Protective Orders
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to
administrative protective order (``APO'') of their responsibility
concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues
to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the
proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
[[Page 15042]]
protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the
regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to
sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this administrative review and notice
in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
Dated: March 7, 2012.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
Appendix I--Issues & Decision Memorandum
COMMENT I: SELECTION OF SURROGATE COUNTRY
A. Economic Comparability
B. Significant Producer of the Comparable Merchandise
C. Data Considerations
COMMENT II: SURROGATE VALUES
A. Financial Ratios
1. Selection of Surrogate Companies
B. By-Products Offsets
1. Fish Waste
2. Fish Oil
3. Fresh Broken Fillets
4. Frozen Broken Fillets
5. Fish Meal
C. Farming Factors
1. Fingerlings, Fish Feed, Nutrients, Lime
D. Other Surrogate Values
1. Labor
2. Salt
3. STPP, CO Gas, PE Bags, Cartons, Tape, Label, Plastic Sheet,
Banding, Diesel, Coal
4. Brokerage & Handling
COMMENT III: ZEROING
Company-Specific Issues
COMMENT IV: VINH HOAN
A. Fish Consumption
B. Revocation
C. Farming Water
COMMENT V: CONSIDERATION OF VINH QUANG AS A VOLUNTARY RESPONDENT
COMMENT VI: SOUTH VINA SEPARATE RATE CERTIFICATION
[FR Doc. 2012-6201 Filed 3-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
