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