Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of Administrative Review, 34935-34937 [2012-14438]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Notices
would be able to serve sites throughout
the service area based on companies’
needs for FTZ designation. The
proposed service area is within and
adjacent to the Naco U.S. Customs and
Border Protection port of entry.
The applicant is requesting authority
to reorganize its existing zone project to
include the existing site as a ‘‘magnet’’
site. No subzones/usage-driven sites are
being requested at this time.
In accordance with the Board’s
regulations, Christopher Kemp of the
FTZ Staff is designated examiner to
evaluate and analyze the facts and
information presented in the application
and case record and to report findings
and recommendations to the Board.
Public comment is invited from
interested parties. Submissions (original
and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the
Board’s Executive Secretary at the
address below. The closing period for
their receipt is August 13, 2012.
Rebuttal comments in response to
material submitted during the foregoing
period may be submitted during the
subsequent 15-day period to August 27,
2012.
A copy of the application will be
available for public inspection at the
Office of the Executive Secretary,
Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 2111,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington,
DC 20230–0002, and in the ‘‘Reading
Room’’ section of the Board’s Web site,
which is accessible via www.trade.gov/
ftz. For further information, contact
Christopher Kemp at
Christopher.Kemp@trade.gov or (202)
482–0862.
[FR Doc. 2012–14266 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Docket T–4–2012]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Foreign-Trade Zone 161; Temporary/
Interim Manufacturing Authority;
Siemens Energy, Inc., (Wind Turbine
Nacelles and Hubs); Notice of
Approval
On April 2, 2012, the Executive
Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones
(FTZ) Board filed an application
submitted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Sedgwick County,
grantee of FTZ 161, requesting
temporary/interim manufacturing (T/
IM) authority, on behalf of Siemens
22:42 Jun 11, 2012
Dated: June 7, 2012.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–14275 Filed 6–11–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–552–802]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp
From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not
in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review and Notice of
Amended Final Results of
Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 30, 2012, the United
States Court of International Trade
(‘‘CIT’’) sustained the Department of
Commerce’s (‘‘the Department’’) results
of redetermination pursuant to the CIT’s
remand order in Amanda Foods
(Vietnam) Ltd., et al. v. United States,
807 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (CIT 2011)
(‘‘Amanda 2011’’).1 Consistent with the
decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(‘‘CAFC’’) in Timken Co. v. United
States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
(‘‘Timken’’), as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United
States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
AGENCY:
Dated: June 5, 2012.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Energy, Inc., to manufacture wind
turbine nacelles and hubs under FTZ
procedures within FTZ 161—Sites 3 and
4, in Hutchinson, Kansas.
The application was processed in
accordance with T/IM procedures, as
authorized by FTZ Board Orders 1347
(69 FR 52857, 8/30/04) and 1480 (71 FR
55422, 9/22/06), including notice in the
Federal Register inviting public
comment (77 FR 20782, 4/6/2012). The
FTZ staff examiner reviewed the
application and determined that it
meets the criteria for approval under T/
IM procedures. Pursuant to the
authority delegated to the FTZ Board
Executive Secretary in the abovereferenced Board Orders, the
application is approved, effective this
date, until June 7, 2014, subject to the
FTZ Act and the Board’s regulations,
including Section 400.13.
Jkt 226001
1 See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant
To Court Remand, Court No. 09–00431, dated
March 29, 2012, available at: https://ia.ita.doc.gov/
remands/ (‘‘Amanda 2011 Final
Remand’’); see also Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.,
et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 12–68 (CIT May 30,
2012) (judgment).
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34935
(‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’), the
Department is notifying the public that
the final judgment in this case is not in
harmony with the Department’s final
results and is amending the final results
of the administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam covering
the period of review (‘‘POR’’) of
February 1, 2007 through January 31,
2008, with respect to the margins
assigned to the following litigants:
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.; Bac Lieu
Fisheries Joint Stock Company;
Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and
Processing Joint Stock Company;
Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation;
Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing
Enterprise Company; Cuulong
Seaproducts Company; Danang
Seaproducts Import Export Corporation;
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood
Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘Minh
Hai Jostoco’’); Minh Hai Joint-Stock
Seafoods Processing Company
(‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’); Minh Hai Sea
Products Import Export Company
(‘‘Seaprimex Co’’); Ngoc Sinh Private
Enterprise; Nha Trang Seaproduct
Company; Phu Cuong Seafood
Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd.;
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company; Soc
Trang Aquatic Products and General
Import Export Company; and UTXI
Aquatic Products Processing
Company.2, 3
DATES: Effective June 11, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the third administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on frozen
warmwater shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam, the Department
2 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and
Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191 (September 15,
2009) (‘‘Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final’’).
3 On March 8, 2012, the Court signed a stipulation
of dismissal with respect to Coastal Fishery
Development a.k.a. Coastal Fisheries Development
Corporation; Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading
Corporation a.k.a. frozen seafoods factory 32 a.k.a.
seafoods and foodstuff factory a.k.a. Frozen
Seafoods Factory No. 32 a.k.a. Frozen Seafoods Fty;
Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation; Nha
Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company; Viet Foods
Co., Ltd.; and Vinh Loi Import Export Co. Ltd. As
a result, these companies are no longer parties in
this litigation, are not subject to this remand, and
we have not changed the rate originally assigned to
them in Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final.
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
34936
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
reviewed 110 companies.4 Of those 110
companies, four companies certified
they had no shipments, three companies
were selected for individual
examination, 25 cooperative, nonindividually examined respondents
demonstrated eligibility for, and
received, a separate rate, and 78
companies were considered part of the
Vietnam-Wide entity because they did
not demonstrate eligibility for a separate
rate.
The Department explained in the
Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final that the
statute and the Department’s regulations
do not directly address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to
companies not selected for individual
examination where the Department has
limited its examination in an
administrative review pursuant to
section 777(A)(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’).5 The
Department further explained that its
practice in this regard, in cases
involving limited selection based on
exporters accounting for the largest
volumes of trade, has been to weightaverage the rates for the selected
companies excluding zero and de
minimis rates and rates based entirely
on facts available.6 However, in this
case, with respect to the cooperative
non-individually examined
respondents, the Department
determined that the circumstances
regarding the separate rate calculation
methodology were comparable to those
of the preceding administrative review,
in which the Department also calculated
de minimis margins for each mandatory
respondent. As a result, consistent with
the methodology applied in the
preceding administrative review, the
Department assigned a separate rate of
4.57 percent, which is the margin
calculated for cooperative separate rate
respondents in the underlying
investigation, to those non-individually
examined respondents in this
administrative review that did not have
their own prior or concurrently
calculated margin.7 Additionally, for
those non-individually examined
respondents for whom we calculated a
rate in a more recent or
contemporaneous segment, we assigned
that calculated rate as the company’s
separate rate in this review.8
4 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results;
Preliminary Partial Rescission and Request for
Revocation, In Part, of the Third Administrative
Review, 74 FR 10009 (March 9, 2009), unchanged
in VN Shrimp AR3 Final, 74 FR at 47196–7.
5 See VN Shrimp AR3 Final, 74 FR at 47195.
6 See id.
7 See id.
8 See id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:42 Jun 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
Specifically, for Viet Hai Seafoods
Company Ltd. and Grobest & I-Mei
Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., we
assigned the rates most recently
calculated for both companies (zero) as
their separate rate in the third
administrative review because these
rates were more recent than the separate
rate calculated in the underlying
investigation and were based on the
companies’ own data. Additionally, for
Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods
Processing Company, we assigned as a
separate rate the most recent rate of 4.30
percent, which we calculated for it in
the underlying investigation based on
the company’s own data.9
This same separate rate assignment
methodology was applied in the final
results of the second administrative
review of frozen warmwater shrimp
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
In the litigation involving that
proceeding, in Amanda Foods
(Vietnam) Ltd., et al. v. United States,
647 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (CIT 2009)
(‘‘Amanda I’’), the CIT remanded the
separate rate assignment methodology to
either assign to the plaintiffs the
weighted-average rate of the mandatory
respondents, or else provide
justification, based on substantial
evidence on the record, for using
another rate. Consequently, in the
Department’s remand redetermination
for Amanda I, we stated that ‘‘the
Department employed the correct
analytical framework in its draft remand
redetermination, in determining a
reasonable method with which to assign
a rate to non-individually examined
respondents’’ in the second
administrative review.10
However, in Amanda Foods
(Vietnam) Ltd., et al. v. United States,
714 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (CIT 2010)
(‘‘Amanda II’’), the CIT disagreed with
the Department’s justification for
applying the selected separate rate
assignment methodology in the Amanda
I remand redetermination and remanded
the issue back to the Department,
ordering that the Department employ a
reasonable method {to assign a separate
rate}, which may ‘‘ ‘include{e}
averaging the estimated weighted
average dumping margins determined
for the exporters and producers
individually investigated,’ 19 U.S.C.
1673d(c)(5)(B) and * * * assign to
Plaintiffs dumping margins for the
second {period of review (‘‘POR’’)}
which are reasonable considering the
evidence on the record as a whole; to do
so, Commerce may reopen the
evidentiary record if need be.’’ 11
In the Department’s remand
redetermination for Amanda II, the
Department reopened the record to
gather the quantity and value (‘‘Q&V’’)
of the plaintiffs’ sales to the United
States during the POR on a count-size
specific basis to conduct an abbreviated
comparative exercise using this Q&V
data and the mandatory respondents’
weighted-average normal values to
determine whether the record contained
evidence of dumping. Based on our
analysis, we determined that there was
no evidence of dumping on the record,
and assigned, under protest, a separate
rate to the 23 plaintiffs equal to the
simple average of the dumping margins
calculated for the two individuallyexamined companies.12 The CIT
affirmed the Amanda II Remand
Redetermination in Amanda Foods
(Vietnam) Ltd., et al. v. United States,
774 F. Supp. 2d 1286 (CIT 2011)
(‘‘Amanda III’’).
As noted above, in light of Amanda
III, the Department requested a
voluntary remand with respect to the
separate rate calculation methodology
applied in Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final.13
Consequently, based on the exercise
similarly conducted in Amanda II
Remand Redetermination and affirmed
in Amanda III, in the Amanda 2011
Final Remand, we analyzed the data
collected from the 16 remaining
plaintiffs and determined that the
record does not contain substantial
evidence to support the continued
assignment of the separate rate applied
in Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final to these
16 plaintiffs.
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the CAFC has held that, pursuant to
section 516A(e) of the Act, the
Department must publish a notice of a
court decision that is not ‘‘in harmony’’
with a Department determination and
must suspend liquidation of entries
pending a ‘‘conclusive’’ court decision.
The CIT’s May 30, 2012, judgment
sustaining the Amanda 2011 Final
Remand constitutes a final decision of
that court that is not in harmony with
the Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final. This
notice is published in fulfillment of the
publication requirements of Timken.
Accordingly, the Department will
continue the suspension of liquidation
of the subject merchandise pending the
expiration of the period of appeal or, if
9 See
11 See
10 See
12 See
id.
Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
To Court Remand, dated March 3, 2010, at 21.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Amanda II, 714 F. Supp. 2d at 1296.
Amanda II Remand Redetermination at 6.
13 See Amanda 2011, 807 F. Supp. 2d at 1338.
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Notices
appealed, pending a final and
conclusive court decision. The cash
deposit rate will remain the companyspecific rate established for the
subsequent and most recent period
during which the respondents were
reviewed.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to the 16
Plaintiffs, revised dumping margins are
as follows14:
Weightedaverage
margin
(percent)
(de minimis)
Manufacturer/exporter
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd ....................................................................................................................................................................
Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company ..................................................................................................................................................
Cadovimex-Vietnam, aka Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘Cadovimex-Vietnam’’) .............
Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘Cafatex Corp.’’) aka Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise
(Cafatex), aka Cafatex, aka Cafatex Vietnam, aka Xi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat Khau Can Tho, aka Cas, aka Cas
Branch, aka Cafatex Saigon, aka Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka Cafatex Corporation, aka Taydo Seafood Enterprise.
Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) aka Camranh Seafoods ...............................................
Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro) aka Cuulong Seapro,
aka Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’).
Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) aka Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company,
aka Seaprodex Danang, aka Tho Quang Seafood Processing And Export Company, aka Tho Quang, aka Tho Quang Co.
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, aka Minh Hai Jostoco, aka Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood
Processing Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’), aka Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company,
aka Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company, aka Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing JointStock Co., aka Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company Minh Hai Jostoco.
Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’) aka Sea Minh Hai, aka Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company.
Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co) , aka Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’)
aka Seaprimexco Vietnam, aka Seaprimexco, aka Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (Seaprimexco).
Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise, aka Ngoc Sinh Seafoods, aka Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprise .......................
Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) ......................................................................................................................
Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’), aka Sao Ta Seafood Factory .................................................................................
Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company ................................................................................................................................................
UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation ........................................................................................................................................
In the event the CIT’s ruling is not
appealed or, if appealed, upheld by the
CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S.
Customs and Border Protection to assess
antidumping duties on entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR
from the 16 Plaintiffs based on the
revised assessment rates calculated by
the Department.
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Dated: June 7, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration.
SUMMARY:
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
14 All other rates determined in Vietnam Shrimp
AR3 Final remain unchanged.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
22:42 Jun 11, 2012
Jkt 226001
International Trade Administration
Brass Sheet and Strip From France:
Notice of Rescission of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
AGENCY:
1 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
now rescinding this administrative
review.
DATES:
Effective Date: June 12, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[A–427–602]
In response to a request from
GBC Metals, LLC, of Global Brass and
Copper, Inc., dba Olin Brass, Heyco
Metals, Inc., Aurubis Buffalo, Inc., PMX
Industries, Inc., and Revere Copper
Products, Inc. (the Petitioners), the
Department of Commerce (the
Department) initiated an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on brass sheet and strip from France.
The period of review is March 1, 2011,
through February 29, 2012. Based on the
withdrawal of request for review
submitted by the Petitioners, we are
[FR Doc. 2012–14438 Filed 6–8–12; 4:15 pm]
34937
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Steve Bezirganian or Robert James, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–1131 or (202) 482–
0649, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 30, 2012, the Department
published in the Federal Register a
notice of initiation of an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on brass sheet and strip from France
covering the period March 1, 2011,
through February 29, 2012.1 The review
covers two companies: Griset SA and
KME France (the Respondents). The
Petitioners requested the review of the
Request for Revocation in Part, 77 FR 25401 (April
30, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\12JNN1.SGM
12JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34935-34937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14438]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-552-802]
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review and Notice of Amended Final Results of
Administrative Review
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On May 30, 2012, the United States Court of International
Trade (``CIT'') sustained the Department of Commerce's (``the
Department'') results of redetermination pursuant to the CIT's remand
order in Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et al. v. United States, 807 F.
Supp. 2d 1332 (CIT 2011) (``Amanda 2011'').\1\ Consistent with the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(``CAFC'') in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (``Timken''), as clarified by Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition
v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (``Diamond
Sawblades''), the Department is notifying the public that the final
judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's final
results and is amending the final results of the administrative review
of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam covering the period of review
(``POR'') of February 1, 2007 through January 31, 2008, with respect to
the margins assigned to the following litigants: Amanda Foods (Vietnam)
Ltd.; Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company; Cadovimex Seafood Import-
Export and Processing Joint Stock Company; Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock
Corporation; Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company; Cuulong
Seaproducts Company; Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation; Minh
Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company (``Minh Hai
Jostoco''); Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company
(``Seaprodex Minh Hai''); Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company
(``Seaprimex Co''); Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise; Nha Trang Seaproduct
Company; Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd.; Sao
Ta Foods Joint Stock Company; Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General
Import Export Company; and UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company.\2,
3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court
Remand, Court No. 09-00431, dated March 29, 2012, available at:
https://ia.ita.doc.gov/remands/ (``Amanda 2011 Final
Remand''); see also Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et al. v. United
States, Slip Op. 12-68 (CIT May 30, 2012) (judgment).
\2\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191 (September 15,
2009) (``Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final'').
\3\ On March 8, 2012, the Court signed a stipulation of
dismissal with respect to Coastal Fishery Development a.k.a. Coastal
Fisheries Development Corporation; Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading
Corporation a.k.a. frozen seafoods factory 32 a.k.a. seafoods and
foodstuff factory a.k.a. Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 a.k.a.
Frozen Seafoods Fty; Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation; Nha
Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company; Viet Foods Co., Ltd.; and Vinh
Loi Import Export Co. Ltd. As a result, these companies are no
longer parties in this litigation, are not subject to this remand,
and we have not changed the rate originally assigned to them in
Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective June 11, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, Office 9, Import
Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the
Department
[[Page 34936]]
reviewed 110 companies.\4\ Of those 110 companies, four companies
certified they had no shipments, three companies were selected for
individual examination, 25 cooperative, non-individually examined
respondents demonstrated eligibility for, and received, a separate
rate, and 78 companies were considered part of the Vietnam-Wide entity
because they did not demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results; Preliminary Partial
Rescission and Request for Revocation, In Part, of the Third
Administrative Review, 74 FR 10009 (March 9, 2009), unchanged in VN
Shrimp AR3 Final, 74 FR at 47196-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department explained in the Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final that the
statute and the Department's regulations do not directly address the
establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for
individual examination where the Department has limited its examination
in an administrative review pursuant to section 777(A)(c)(2) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act'').\5\ The Department further
explained that its practice in this regard, in cases involving limited
selection based on exporters accounting for the largest volumes of
trade, has been to weight-average the rates for the selected companies
excluding zero and de minimis rates and rates based entirely on facts
available.\6\ However, in this case, with respect to the cooperative
non-individually examined respondents, the Department determined that
the circumstances regarding the separate rate calculation methodology
were comparable to those of the preceding administrative review, in
which the Department also calculated de minimis margins for each
mandatory respondent. As a result, consistent with the methodology
applied in the preceding administrative review, the Department assigned
a separate rate of 4.57 percent, which is the margin calculated for
cooperative separate rate respondents in the underlying investigation,
to those non-individually examined respondents in this administrative
review that did not have their own prior or concurrently calculated
margin.\7\ Additionally, for those non-individually examined
respondents for whom we calculated a rate in a more recent or
contemporaneous segment, we assigned that calculated rate as the
company's separate rate in this review.\8\ Specifically, for Viet Hai
Seafoods Company Ltd. and Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co.,
Ltd., we assigned the rates most recently calculated for both companies
(zero) as their separate rate in the third administrative review
because these rates were more recent than the separate rate calculated
in the underlying investigation and were based on the companies' own
data. Additionally, for Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing
Company, we assigned as a separate rate the most recent rate of 4.30
percent, which we calculated for it in the underlying investigation
based on the company's own data.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See VN Shrimp AR3 Final, 74 FR at 47195.
\6\ See id.
\7\ See id.
\8\ See id.
\9\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This same separate rate assignment methodology was applied in the
final results of the second administrative review of frozen warmwater
shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. In the litigation
involving that proceeding, in Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et al. v.
United States, 647 F. Supp. 2d 1368 (CIT 2009) (``Amanda I''), the CIT
remanded the separate rate assignment methodology to either assign to
the plaintiffs the weighted-average rate of the mandatory respondents,
or else provide justification, based on substantial evidence on the
record, for using another rate. Consequently, in the Department's
remand redetermination for Amanda I, we stated that ``the Department
employed the correct analytical framework in its draft remand
redetermination, in determining a reasonable method with which to
assign a rate to non-individually examined respondents'' in the second
administrative review.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant To Court
Remand, dated March 3, 2010, at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, in Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et al. v. United States,
714 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (CIT 2010) (``Amanda II''), the CIT disagreed with
the Department's justification for applying the selected separate rate
assignment methodology in the Amanda I remand redetermination and
remanded the issue back to the Department, ordering that the Department
employ a reasonable method {to assign a separate rate{time} , which may
`` `include{e{time} averaging the estimated weighted average dumping
margins determined for the exporters and producers individually
investigated,' 19 U.S.C. 1673d(c)(5)(B) and * * * assign to Plaintiffs
dumping margins for the second {period of review (``POR''){time} which
are reasonable considering the evidence on the record as a whole; to do
so, Commerce may reopen the evidentiary record if need be.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Amanda II, 714 F. Supp. 2d at 1296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Department's remand redetermination for Amanda II, the
Department reopened the record to gather the quantity and value
(``Q&V'') of the plaintiffs' sales to the United States during the POR
on a count-size specific basis to conduct an abbreviated comparative
exercise using this Q&V data and the mandatory respondents' weighted-
average normal values to determine whether the record contained
evidence of dumping. Based on our analysis, we determined that there
was no evidence of dumping on the record, and assigned, under protest,
a separate rate to the 23 plaintiffs equal to the simple average of the
dumping margins calculated for the two individually-examined
companies.\12\ The CIT affirmed the Amanda II Remand Redetermination in
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., et al. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d
1286 (CIT 2011) (``Amanda III'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Amanda II Remand Redetermination at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, in light of Amanda III, the Department requested a
voluntary remand with respect to the separate rate calculation
methodology applied in Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final.\13\ Consequently,
based on the exercise similarly conducted in Amanda II Remand
Redetermination and affirmed in Amanda III, in the Amanda 2011 Final
Remand, we analyzed the data collected from the 16 remaining plaintiffs
and determined that the record does not contain substantial evidence to
support the continued assignment of the separate rate applied in
Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final to these 16 plaintiffs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Amanda 2011, 807 F. Supp. 2d at 1338.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades, the CAFC has held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the
Act, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is
not ``in harmony'' with a Department determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a ``conclusive'' court decision. The
CIT's May 30, 2012, judgment sustaining the Amanda 2011 Final Remand
constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with
the Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final. This notice is published in fulfillment
of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department
will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise
pending the expiration of the period of appeal or, if
[[Page 34937]]
appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision. The cash
deposit rate will remain the company-specific rate established for the
subsequent and most recent period during which the respondents were
reviewed.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to the 16
Plaintiffs, revised dumping margins are as follows\14\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ All other rates determined in Vietnam Shrimp AR3 Final
remain unchanged.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted- average margin
Manufacturer/exporter (percent) (de minimis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.................... 0.26
Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company........ 0.26
Cadovimex-Vietnam, aka Cadovimex Seafood 0.26
Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock
Company (``Cadovimex-Vietnam'').
Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation 0.26
(``Cafatex Corp.'') aka Cantho Animal
Fisheries Product Processing Export
Enterprise (Cafatex), aka Cafatex, aka
Cafatex Vietnam, aka Xi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy
Suc San Xuat Khau Can Tho, aka Cas, aka Cas
Branch, aka Cafatex Saigon, aka Cafatex
Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka Cafatex
Corporation, aka Taydo Seafood Enterprise.
Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise 0.26
Company (``Camranh Seafoods'') aka Camranh
Seafoods.
Cuulong Seaproducts Company (``Cuu Long 0.26
Seapro'') aka Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited
(Cuulong Seapro) aka Cuulong Seapro, aka
Cuulong Seaproducts Company (``Cuulong
Seapro'') (``Cuu Long Seapro'').
Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation 0.26
(``Seaprodex Danang'') aka Tho Quang Seafood
Processing & Export Company, aka Seaprodex
Danang, aka Tho Quang Seafood Processing And
Export Company, aka Tho Quang, aka Tho Quang
Co.
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing 0.26
Joint Stock Company, aka Minh Hai Jostoco,
aka Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing
Joint-Stock Company (``Minh Hai Jostoco''),
aka Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing
Joint-Stock Company, aka Minh Hai Joint Stock
Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company, aka
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing
Joint-Stock Co., aka Minh Hai Export Frozen
Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company Minh
Hai Jostoco.
Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing 0.26
Company (``Seaprodex Minh Hai'') aka Sea Minh
Hai, aka Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods
Processing Company.
Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company 0.26
(Seaprimex Co) , aka Ca Mau Seafood Joint
Stock Company (``SEAPRIMEXCO'') aka
Seaprimexco Vietnam, aka Seaprimexco, aka Ca
Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (Seaprimexco).
Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise, aka Ngoc Sinh 0.26
Seafoods, aka Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Processing
and Trading Enterprise.
Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (`Nha Trang 0.26
Seafoods'').
Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export 0.26
Co., Ltd.
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (``Fimex 0.26
VN''), aka Sao Ta Seafood Factory.
Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company......... 0.26
UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation.. 0.26
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed,
upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and
Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on entries of the
subject merchandise during the POR from the 16 Plaintiffs based on the
revised assessment rates calculated by the Department.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: June 7, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-14438 Filed 6-8-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
