Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Reopening of the First Five-Year “Sunset” Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 15310-15313 [2014-06081]

Download as PDF 15310 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Notices Final Results of the Review minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. The Department announced a refinement to its assessment practice in non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) cases. Pursuant to this refinement in practice, for entries that were not reported in the U.S. sales databases submitted by companies individually examined during this review, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at the NME-wide rate. In addition, if the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter’s case number (i.e., at that exporter’s rate) will be liquidated at the NME-wide rate. For a full discussion of this practice, see NME Antidumping Proceedings.9 The dumping margin for the POR is as follows: Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. Changes Since the Preliminary Results Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have not made any changes to the Preliminary Results. Determination Not To Revoke Order in Part We continue to find that Grobest has not satisfied the requirements of 19 CFR 351.222(b). Thus, under section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we determine not to revoke in part the order with respect to Grobest. Exporter Weightedaverage margin (Percent) Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) ........................... 25.76 sroberts on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Assessment Rates The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will calculate importer-specific assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer’s examined sales and the total entered value of sales.8 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis. Where either the respondent’s weightedaverage dumping margin is zero or de 8 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101 (February 14, 2012). VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Mar 18, 2014 Jkt 232001 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 occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties. Administrative Protective Order 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 or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial 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. 9 See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (‘‘NME Antidumping Proceedings’’). PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Dated: March 13, 2014. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2014–06080 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A–552–802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Reopening of the First Five-Year ‘‘Sunset’’ Review of the Antidumping Duty Order Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 7, 2010, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) published the final results of the first sunset review of the antidumping duty (‘‘AD’’) order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). Certain information has come to the Department’s attention that may call into question the integrity of the first sunset review and the information on which the Department relied for its final results. The Department is reopening the first sunset review to consider the new information and invites the interested parties to comment on this information. DATES: Effective Date: March 19, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202– 482–4047. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Background On December 7, 2010, the Department published the final results of the first sunset review of the AD order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam finding that revocation of the order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.1 On April 5, 2011, the International Trade Commission (‘‘the ITC’’) published its determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) that revocation of 1 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Five-year ‘‘Sunset’’ Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 75965 (December 7, 2010)(‘‘Sunset Final Results’’). E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM 19MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Notices sroberts on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES the AD orders from Brazil, India, the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), Thailand and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2 On April 29, 2011, the Department published the notice of continuation of these AD orders.3 Subsequent to the publication of the Final Results, in a separate proceeding concerning the AD order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC, Petitioners submitted to the Department certain information released in conjunction with a federal criminal proceeding before the United States District Court for the Central District of California.4 This information may be relevant to the AD order on shrimp from Vietnam. In particular, the information, which relates to the time period considered in the sunset review, indicates that Vietnamese exporters of shrimp may have engaged in a scheme to falsely label seafood and evade payment of ADs.5 The Sentencing Report states, among other things, that the ‘‘scheme was undertaken to . . . escape anti-dumping duties and/or scrutiny of possible circumvention of anti-dumping duties. . . .’’ 6 2 See Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India, the People’s Republic of China, Thailand and Vietnam, 76 FR 18782 (April 5, 2011). 3 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India, the People’s Republic of China, Thailand and Vietnam: Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders, 76 FR 23972 (April 29, 2011). 4 See Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results, Partial Rescission of Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 77 FR 53856, 53857 (September 4, 2012) and the accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Company Specific Issues (Hilltop) and Comments 1–2; see also Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Reconsideration of a Changed Circumstances Review, 78 FR 76106 (December 16, 2013) and the accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at Comment 1. Petitioners also referenced this information in a submission made in an administrative review of this Vietnam shrimp proceeding, but did not place it on the administrative record of that segment. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Final Results of Re-conducted Administrative Review of Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. and Intent Not to Revoke; 2008—2009, signed March 13, 2014, publication pending. 5 See United States’ Position with Respect to Sentencing, at 2, 5 (February 6, 2012) (‘‘Sentencing Report’’). 6 According to the Sentencing Report, the scheme involving Vietnamese shrimp was originally uncovered when the NOAA Office of Enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘‘ICE’’) investigated several companies importing Vietnamese catfish, which was subject to a separate antidumping duty order, in boxes labeled as other species that were not subject to antidumping duties, such as ‘‘sole,’’ ‘‘grouper,’’ ‘‘carp,’’ ‘‘channa,’’ etc. See Sentencing Report at 19. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Mar 18, 2014 Jkt 232001 According to the Sentencing Report, a U.S. importer, Ocean Duke,7 imported shrimp from countries subject to an AD order, ‘‘particularly from Vietnam’’ and ‘‘labeled it, falsely, as product of Cambodia (thus, not subject to antidumping duties.).’’ 8 Moreover, the Sentencing Report indicates that subsequent to the imposition of ADs on shrimp from Vietnam in 2004,9 ‘‘between May 2004 and July 2005 Ocean Duke imported as product of Cambodia over 15 million pounds of aquacultured, or farmed shrimp, with a declared value of over $42 million.’’ 10 The Sentencing Report also states that ‘‘during all of 2004 and 2005, Cambodia produced only an estimated 385,000 pounds of aquacultured shrimp.’’ 11 According to the Sentencing Report, internal emails and statements of former employees confirm the existence of significant shipments of ‘‘Vietnamese shrimp through Cambodia, thus making possible the export of 15 million pounds,’’ i.e., many times greater than Cambodia’s entire aquacultured shrimp production.12 The Sentencing Report indicates that ‘‘U.S. Customs records establish that in 2002 and 2003, Ocean Duke imported shrimp from Vietnam, Thailand, China, and occasionally Indonesia; but not Cambodia.’’ 13 On January 27, 2004, the Department published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of AD investigations on certain warmwater shrimp from various countries, including Vietnam.14 These investigations did not involve Cambodian shrimp.15 7 Ocean Duke was found to be an affiliate of a Vietnamese exporter during the time period. See e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10691–93 (March 9, 2007) (unchanged in final results, Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 2007)). 8 See Sentencing Report at 5. 9 The Department instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin collecting duties as of July 16, 2004, the date of publication of its affirmative preliminary determination of sales at less than fair value. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination; Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42686 (July 16, 2004). 10 See Sentencing Report at 5. 11 Id. at 5 and at Attachments 1–3 (documenting Cambodian shrimp production data). 12 Id. at 5. 13 Id. at 20 (emphasis in the original) and Attachments 7 and 8. 14 See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 69 FR 3876 (January 27, 2004) (‘‘Notice of Initiation’’). 15 Id. PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 15311 Relying on U.S. Customs records, the Sentencing Report states that in May 2004, i.e., within months from the initiation of the AD investigation on shrimp from Vietnam, Ocean Duke ceased importing shrimp from Vietnam and simultaneously began importing significant quantities of shrimp from Cambodia.16 During the period from May through December 2003, i.e., immediately prior to the initiation of the AD investigation on shrimp from Vietnam, Ocean Duke imported 52 shipments of shrimp from Vietnam and none from Cambodia.17 In contrast, during the same period in 2004, i.e., after the AD investigation was initiated, Ocean Duke imported no shrimp from Vietnam and 327 shipments of shrimp from Cambodia.18 The email correspondence to the U.S. importer, dated May 13, 2004, states in part: ‘‘We are shipping some containers of [shrimp] . . . . from VN to Cambodia for repacking. We really want to reuse all white cartons of Vietnam and stick MC [master carton] labels in Cambodia.’’ 19 Scope of the Order 20 The scope of the order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,21 deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen form. The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of the order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in any count size. The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught 16 See Sentencing Report at 20 and Attachment 10. 17 Id. at 20–21 and Attachments 9 and 10. 18 Id. 19 Id. at Attachment 14. April 26, 2011, the Department amended the antidumping duty order to include dusted shrimp. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India, the People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Antidumping Duty Orders in Accordance with Final Court Decision, 76 FR 23227 (April 26, 2011). Because dusted shrimp were excluded from the scope of the order during the sunset review period, dusted shrimp continue to be excluded for purposes of this re-opened sunset review. 21 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which includes the telson and the uropods. 20 On E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM 19MRN1 sroberts on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 15312 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Notices warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope of the order. In addition, food preparations, which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of the order. Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, and par-fried. The products covered by the order are currently classified under the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Mar 18, 2014 Jkt 232001 0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, but rather the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive. Analysis The Department determines that the information contained in the Sentencing Report warrants a reopening of the first sunset review of the AD order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. In accordance with requirements of the Act, in the sunset review, the Department examined whether revocation of the AD order would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping. Sections 752(c)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act provide that, in making this determination, the Department shall consider both the weighted-average dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews, and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period before and the period after the issuance of the AD order. The information contained in the Sentencing Report was not available to the Department at the time of the sunset review, and thus was not considered by the Department in its likelihood determination. The information in the Sentencing Report suggesting the existence of a multi-year transnational scheme to avoid payment of ADs on Vietnamese shrimp is potentially relevant to the issues considered in the sunset review, including whether dumping is likely to continue or recur if the AD order is revoked. We are concerned that the record examined in the sunset review may have been tainted by fraud, which may have affected the completeness, accuracy and reliability of the information considered by the Department. For example, a significant portion of Vietnamese shrimp exporters to the United States (collectively referred to as Vietnamese Shrimp Exporters) 22 actively participated in the 22 The Department received substantive responses to its notice of initiation of the sunset review from Vietnamese Shrimp Exporters and domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) provides that the Secretary normally will conclude that respondent interested parties have provided an adequate response to a notice of initiation where the Department receives complete substantive responses from respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 50 percent, by volume, or value, if appropriate, of the total exports of the subject merchandise to the United States over the five calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of initiation of the sunset review. On March 2, 2010, the Department determined that the Vietnamese PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 sunset review, making joint submissions, in which they argued in part that certain import volume declines occurred because of supply and demand issues.23 In making its joint submissions to the Department (and certifying to their accuracy), however, the Vietnamese Shrimp Exporters (which included the affiliate of Ocean Duke) did not present information to the Department related to the findings in the Sentencing Report regarding the alleged scheme for avoiding the payment of ADs by means of exporting Vietnamese shrimp as the product of Cambodia. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recognized the Department’s authority to ensure that our proceedings are not undermined by fraud, holding that the Department has the ‘‘inherent authority’’ to reopen and reconsider a previously conducted proceeding, when new evidence of fraud calls into question the integrity of the determination.24 Here, the information stemming from a separate criminal proceeding raised serious questions regarding the integrity, accuracy and completeness of the administrative record considered in the sunset review of the AD order on shrimp from Vietnam. Accordingly, we determine that the reopening of the first sunset review to consider this information and its impact on the sunset review is warranted under these circumstances. Comments Concurrently with the publication of this notice, the Department intends to place the new information discussed above on the record of this sunset review. The Department invites all interested parties to comment on the new information. Interested parties may submit comments no later than 30 days from the publication of this notice. Comments must be limited to the new information and how the Department should consider it in its analysis. Filing Information All submissions in this reopened segment must be filed in accordance with the Department’s regulations regarding format, translation, and service of documents. These rules, including electronic filing requirements Shrimp Exporters submitted an adequate substantive response to the Department’s notice of initiation. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle: Adequacy Determination in Antidumping Duty Sunset Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated March 2, 2010. 23 See Sunset Final Results, and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Issue 1. 24 See Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 1352, 1360–62 (Fed. Cir. 2008). E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM 19MRN1 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 53 / Wednesday, March 19, 2014 / Notices via Enforcement and Compliance’s AD and Countervailing Duty (‘‘CVD’’) Centralized Electronic Service System (‘‘IA ACCESS’’), can be found at 19 CFR 351.303.25 This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.26 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and make available a public service list for this sunset review. Because changes to the representation of interested parties may have changed since this sunset review was initially conducted, to facilitate the timely update of the service list, it is requested that those seeking recognition as interested parties to this reopened segment file an entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of this notice. We urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary information under APO immediately following publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Department’s regulations on submission of proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304– 306. This five-year (‘‘sunset’’) review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i) of the Act. Dated: March 14, 2014. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. [FR Doc. 2014–06081 Filed 3–18–14; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C–570–936] Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce. SUMMARY: On December 2, 2013, the Department of Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) initiated a sunset review of the countervailing duty (‘‘CVD’’) sroberts on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES AGENCY: 25 See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011). 26 See section 782(b) of the Act. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:28 Mar 18, 2014 Jkt 232001 order on circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe (‘‘line pipe’’) from the People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties and an inadequate response from respondent interested parties (in this case, no response), the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of this CVD order pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(B) and (C). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the CVD order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy at the level indicated in the ‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this notice. DATES: Effective Date: March 19, 2014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristen Johnson, Office III, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On December 2, 2013, the Department initiated a sunset review of the CVD order on line pipe from the PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act.1 The Department received a notice of intent to participate in the review on behalf of United States Steel Corporation (‘‘US Steel’’), Maverick Tube Corporation (‘‘Maverick’’), American Cast Iron Pipe Company (‘‘ACIPCO’’), JMC Steel Group, Stupp Corporation, Tex-Tube Company, TMK IPSCO, and Welspun Tubular LLC USA, (collectively, ‘‘the domestic industry’’) within the deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i). Each of these companies claimed interested party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act, as a domestic producer of the domestic like product. The Department received adequate substantive responses collectively from the domestic industry within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). The Department did not receive a substantive response from any government or respondent interested party to the proceeding. Because the Department received no response from the respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an 1 See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) Review, 78 FR 72061 (December 2, 2013). PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 15313 expedited review of this CVD order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). Scope of the Order The merchandise covered by this order is circular welded carbon quality steel pipe of a kind used for oil and gas pipelines (welded line pipe). The welded line pipe products that are the subject of this order are currently classifiable in the HTSUS under subheadings 7306.19.10.10, 7306.19.10.50, 7306.19.51.10, and 7306.19.51.50. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. For a full description of the scope, see ‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Circular Welded Carbon Quality Steel Line Pipe from the People’s Republic of China’’ from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this final notice, and hereby adopted by this notice (‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’). Analysis of Comments Received All issues raised in this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy and the net countervailable subsidy likely to prevail if the order were revoked. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in this expedited sunset review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file electronically via the Enforcement and Compliance Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http:// enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content. E:\FR\FM\19MRN1.SGM 19MRN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 53 (Wednesday, March 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15310-15313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06081]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-552-802]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of 
Vietnam: Notice of Reopening of the First Five-Year ``Sunset'' Review 
of the Antidumping Duty Order

AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, 
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On December 7, 2010, the Department of Commerce (``the 
Department'') published the final results of the first sunset review of 
the antidumping duty (``AD'') order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam''). Certain 
information has come to the Department's attention that may call into 
question the integrity of the first sunset review and the information 
on which the Department relied for its final results. The Department is 
reopening the first sunset review to consider the new information and 
invites the interested parties to comment on this information.

DATES: Effective Date: March 19, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 
V, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street 
and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: 202-482-
4047.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On December 7, 2010, the Department published the final results of 
the first sunset review of the AD order on certain frozen warmwater 
shrimp from Vietnam finding that revocation of the order would likely 
lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping.\1\ On April 5, 2011, the 
International Trade Commission (``the ITC'') published its 
determination pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended (``the Act'') that revocation of

[[Page 15311]]

the AD orders from Brazil, India, the People's Republic of China 
(``PRC''), Thailand and Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation 
or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States 
within a reasonably foreseeable time.\2\ On April 29, 2011, the 
Department published the notice of continuation of these AD orders.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Five-year ``Sunset'' 
Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 75 FR 75965 (December 7, 
2010)(``Sunset Final Results'').
    \2\ See Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India, the People's 
Republic of China, Thailand and Vietnam, 76 FR 18782 (April 5, 
2011).
    \3\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, India, the 
People's Republic of China, Thailand and Vietnam: Continuation of 
Antidumping Duty Orders, 76 FR 23972 (April 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the publication of the Final Results, in a separate 
proceeding concerning the AD order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp 
from the PRC, Petitioners submitted to the Department certain 
information released in conjunction with a federal criminal proceeding 
before the United States District Court for the Central District of 
California.\4\ This information may be relevant to the AD order on 
shrimp from Vietnam. In particular, the information, which relates to 
the time period considered in the sunset review, indicates that 
Vietnamese exporters of shrimp may have engaged in a scheme to falsely 
label seafood and evade payment of ADs.\5\ The Sentencing Report 
states, among other things, that the ``scheme was undertaken to . . . 
escape anti-dumping duties and/or scrutiny of possible circumvention of 
anti-dumping duties. . . .'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
From the People's Republic of China: Final Results, Partial 
Rescission of Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 
Determination Not to Revoke in Part, 77 FR 53856, 53857 (September 
4, 2012) and the accompanying Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 
Company Specific Issues (Hilltop) and Comments 1-2; see also Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China: Notice 
of Final Reconsideration of a Changed Circumstances Review, 78 FR 
76106 (December 16, 2013) and the accompanying Issues and Decisions 
Memorandum at Comment 1. Petitioners also referenced this 
information in a submission made in an administrative review of this 
Vietnam shrimp proceeding, but did not place it on the 
administrative record of that segment. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; Final Results of Re-
conducted Administrative Review of Grobest & I-Mei Industrial 
(Vietnam) Co., Ltd. and Intent Not to Revoke; 2008--2009, signed 
March 13, 2014, publication pending.
    \5\ See United States' Position with Respect to Sentencing, at 
2, 5 (February 6, 2012) (``Sentencing Report'').
    \6\ According to the Sentencing Report, the scheme involving 
Vietnamese shrimp was originally uncovered when the NOAA Office of 
Enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (``ICE'') 
investigated several companies importing Vietnamese catfish, which 
was subject to a separate antidumping duty order, in boxes labeled 
as other species that were not subject to antidumping duties, such 
as ``sole,'' ``grouper,'' ``carp,'' ``channa,'' etc. See Sentencing 
Report at 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Sentencing Report, a U.S. importer, Ocean Duke,\7\ 
imported shrimp from countries subject to an AD order, ``particularly 
from Vietnam'' and ``labeled it, falsely, as product of Cambodia (thus, 
not subject to anti-dumping duties.).'' \8\ Moreover, the Sentencing 
Report indicates that subsequent to the imposition of ADs on shrimp 
from Vietnam in 2004,\9\ ``between May 2004 and July 2005 Ocean Duke 
imported as product of Cambodia over 15 million pounds of aquacultured, 
or farmed shrimp, with a declared value of over $42 million.'' \10\ The 
Sentencing Report also states that ``during all of 2004 and 2005, 
Cambodia produced only an estimated 385,000 pounds of aquacultured 
shrimp.'' \11\ According to the Sentencing Report, internal emails and 
statements of former employees confirm the existence of significant 
shipments of ``Vietnamese shrimp through Cambodia, thus making possible 
the export of 15 million pounds,'' i.e., many times greater than 
Cambodia's entire aquacultured shrimp production.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Ocean Duke was found to be an affiliate of a Vietnamese 
exporter during the time period. See e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results 
of the First Administrative Review and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 
10689, 10691-93 (March 9, 2007) (unchanged in final results, Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 
Final Results of the First Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
and New Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 (September 12, 2007)).
    \8\ See Sentencing Report at 5.
    \9\ The Department instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
to begin collecting duties as of July 16, 2004, the date of 
publication of its affirmative preliminary determination of sales at 
less than fair value. See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 
Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative Preliminary Determination of 
Critical Circumstances and Postponement of Final Determination; 
Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 
Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 42672, 42686 (July 16, 2004).
    \10\ See Sentencing Report at 5.
    \11\ Id. at 5 and at Attachments 1-3 (documenting Cambodian 
shrimp production data).
    \12\ Id. at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Sentencing Report indicates that ``U.S. Customs records 
establish that in 2002 and 2003, Ocean Duke imported shrimp from 
Vietnam, Thailand, China, and occasionally Indonesia; but not 
Cambodia.'' \13\ On January 27, 2004, the Department published in the 
Federal Register the notice of initiation of AD investigations on 
certain warmwater shrimp from various countries, including Vietnam.\14\ 
These investigations did not involve Cambodian shrimp.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id. at 20 (emphasis in the original) and Attachments 7 and 
8.
    \14\ See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 69 FR 
3876 (January 27, 2004) (``Notice of Initiation'').
    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relying on U.S. Customs records, the Sentencing Report states that 
in May 2004, i.e., within months from the initiation of the AD 
investigation on shrimp from Vietnam, Ocean Duke ceased importing 
shrimp from Vietnam and simultaneously began importing significant 
quantities of shrimp from Cambodia.\16\ During the period from May 
through December 2003, i.e., immediately prior to the initiation of the 
AD investigation on shrimp from Vietnam, Ocean Duke imported 52 
shipments of shrimp from Vietnam and none from Cambodia.\17\ In 
contrast, during the same period in 2004, i.e., after the AD 
investigation was initiated, Ocean Duke imported no shrimp from Vietnam 
and 327 shipments of shrimp from Cambodia.\18\ The email correspondence 
to the U.S. importer, dated May 13, 2004, states in part: ``We are 
shipping some containers of [shrimp] . . . . from VN to Cambodia for 
repacking. We really want to reuse all white cartons of Vietnam and 
stick MC [master carton] labels in Cambodia.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Sentencing Report at 20 and Attachment 10.
    \17\ Id. at 20-21 and Attachments 9 and 10.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id. at Attachment 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ On April 26, 2011, the Department amended the antidumping 
duty order to include dusted shrimp. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp From Brazil, India, the People's Republic of China, Thailand, 
and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Antidumping Duty 
Orders in Accordance with Final Court Decision, 76 FR 23227 (April 
26, 2011). Because dusted shrimp were excluded from the scope of the 
order during the sunset review period, dusted shrimp continue to be 
excluded for purposes of this re-opened sunset review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The scope of the order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 
prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced 
by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or 
tail-off,\21\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise 
processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which 
includes the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the 
scope of the order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''), are products which are 
processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which 
are sold in any count size.
    The products described above may be processed from any species of 
warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally 
classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 
examples of the farmed and wild-caught

[[Page 15312]]

warmwater species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp 
(Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn 
(Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), 
giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus 
brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink 
shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus 
curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp 
(Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 
and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of the order. In addition, food 
preparations, which are not ``prepared meals,'' that contain more than 
20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope 
of the order.
    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 
subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified 
in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, 
in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-
on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 
shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 
(5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns 
(HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted shrimp; and (8) 
certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) 
That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 
(2) to which a ``dusting'' layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 
percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the 
shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the 
non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and 10 
percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to 
being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately 
after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-
based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of 
dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or 
milk, and par-fried.
    The products covered by the order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 
1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, 
but rather the written description of the scope of the order is 
dispositive.

Analysis

    The Department determines that the information contained in the 
Sentencing Report warrants a reopening of the first sunset review of 
the AD order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. In 
accordance with requirements of the Act, in the sunset review, the 
Department examined whether revocation of the AD order would be likely 
to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping. Sections 
752(c)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act provide that, in making this 
determination, the Department shall consider both the weighted-average 
dumping margins determined in the investigation and subsequent reviews, 
and the volume of imports of the subject merchandise for the period 
before and the period after the issuance of the AD order. The 
information contained in the Sentencing Report was not available to the 
Department at the time of the sunset review, and thus was not 
considered by the Department in its likelihood determination.
    The information in the Sentencing Report suggesting the existence 
of a multi-year transnational scheme to avoid payment of ADs on 
Vietnamese shrimp is potentially relevant to the issues considered in 
the sunset review, including whether dumping is likely to continue or 
recur if the AD order is revoked. We are concerned that the record 
examined in the sunset review may have been tainted by fraud, which may 
have affected the completeness, accuracy and reliability of the 
information considered by the Department. For example, a significant 
portion of Vietnamese shrimp exporters to the United States 
(collectively referred to as Vietnamese Shrimp Exporters) \22\ actively 
participated in the sunset review, making joint submissions, in which 
they argued in part that certain import volume declines occurred 
because of supply and demand issues.\23\ In making its joint 
submissions to the Department (and certifying to their accuracy), 
however, the Vietnamese Shrimp Exporters (which included the affiliate 
of Ocean Duke) did not present information to the Department related to 
the findings in the Sentencing Report regarding the alleged scheme for 
avoiding the payment of ADs by means of exporting Vietnamese shrimp as 
the product of Cambodia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The Department received substantive responses to its notice 
of initiation of the sunset review from Vietnamese Shrimp Exporters 
and domestic interested parties within the 30-day deadline specified 
in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i). 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(A) provides 
that the Secretary normally will conclude that respondent interested 
parties have provided an adequate response to a notice of initiation 
where the Department receives complete substantive responses from 
respondent interested parties accounting on average for more than 50 
percent, by volume, or value, if appropriate, of the total exports 
of the subject merchandise to the United States over the five 
calendar years preceding the year of publication of the notice of 
initiation of the sunset review. On March 2, 2010, the Department 
determined that the Vietnamese Shrimp Exporters submitted an 
adequate substantive response to the Department's notice of 
initiation. See Memorandum to James C. Doyle: Adequacy Determination 
in Antidumping Duty Sunset Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, dated March 2, 2010.
    \23\ See Sunset Final Results, and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Issue 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recognized the 
Department's authority to ensure that our proceedings are not 
undermined by fraud, holding that the Department has the ``inherent 
authority'' to reopen and reconsider a previously conducted proceeding, 
when new evidence of fraud calls into question the integrity of the 
determination.\24\ Here, the information stemming from a separate 
criminal proceeding raised serious questions regarding the integrity, 
accuracy and completeness of the administrative record considered in 
the sunset review of the AD order on shrimp from Vietnam. Accordingly, 
we determine that the reopening of the first sunset review to consider 
this information and its impact on the sunset review is warranted under 
these circumstances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Tokyo Kikai Seisakusho, Ltd. v. United States, 529 F.3d 
1352, 1360-62 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    Concurrently with the publication of this notice, the Department 
intends to place the new information discussed above on the record of 
this sunset review. The Department invites all interested parties to 
comment on the new information. Interested parties may submit comments 
no later than 30 days from the publication of this notice. Comments 
must be limited to the new information and how the Department should 
consider it in its analysis.

Filing Information

    All submissions in this reopened segment must be filed in 
accordance with the Department's regulations regarding format, 
translation, and service of documents. These rules, including 
electronic filing requirements

[[Page 15313]]

via Enforcement and Compliance's AD and Countervailing Duty (``CVD'') 
Centralized Electronic Service System (``IA ACCESS''), can be found at 
19 CFR 351.303.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order 
Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This notice serves as a reminder that any party submitting factual 
information in an AD/CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and 
completeness of that information.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See section 782(b) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(d), the Department will maintain and 
make available a public service list for this sunset review. Because 
changes to the representation of interested parties may have changed 
since this sunset review was initially conducted, to facilitate the 
timely update of the service list, it is requested that those seeking 
recognition as interested parties to this reopened segment file an 
entry of appearance within 10 days of the publication of this notice.
    We urge interested parties to apply for access to proprietary 
information under APO immediately following publication of this notice 
in the Federal Register. The Department's regulations on submission of 
proprietary information and eligibility to receive access to business 
proprietary information under APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304-306.
    This five-year (``sunset'') review and notice are in accordance 
with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: March 14, 2014.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-06081 Filed 3-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P