Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decisions Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 7840-7842 [2015-02973]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
7840
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices
C. Benefitting in any way from any
transaction involving any item exported
or to be exported from the United States
that is subject to the Regulations, or in
any other activity subject to the
Regulations.
Second, no person may, directly or
indirectly, do any of the following:
A. Export or reexport to or on behalf
of a Denied Person any item subject to
the Regulations;
B. Take any action that facilitates the
acquisition or attempted acquisition by
a Denied Person of the ownership,
possession, or control of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States, including financing or other
support activities related to a
transaction whereby a Denied Person
acquires or attempts to acquire such
ownership, possession or control;
C. Take any action to acquire from or
to facilitate the acquisition or attempted
acquisition from a Denied Person of any
item subject to the Regulations that has
been exported from the United States;
D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the
United States any item subject to the
Regulations with knowledge or reason
to know that the item will be, or is
intended to be, exported from the
United States; or
E. Engage in any transaction to service
any item subject to the Regulations that
has been or will be exported from the
United States and which is owned,
possessed or controlled by a Denied
Person, or service any item, of whatever
origin, that is owned, possessed or
controlled by a Denied Person, if such
service involves the use of any item
subject to the Regulations that has been
or will be exported from the United
States. For purposes of this paragraph,
servicing means installation,
maintenance, repair, modification or
testing.
Third, in addition to the Related
Person named above, after notice and
opportunity for comment as provided in
section 766.23 of the Regulations, any
other individual, firm, corporation, or
other association or organization or
other person related to a Denied Person
by ownership, control, position of
responsibility, affiliation, or other
connection in the conduct of trade or
business may also be made subject to
the provisions of this Order if necessary
to prevent evasion of this Order.
Fourth, in accordance with Part 756
and Section 766.25(g) of the
Regulations, Maple Pacific may file an
appeal of the issuance of this Order
against it with the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Industry and Security.
The appeal must be filed within 45 days
from the date of this Order and must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:54 Feb 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
comply with the provisions of Part 756
of the Regulations.
Fifth, in accordance with Part 756 and
Section 766.23(c) of the Regulations,
Hsu may file an appeal of naming him
as a related person in this Order with
the Under Secretary of Commerce for
Industry and Security. This appeal must
be filed within 45 days from the date of
this Order and must comply with the
provisions of Part 756 of the
Regulations.
Sixth, a copy of this Order shall be
provided to Maple Pacific and Hsu and
shall be published in the Federal
Register.
Seventh, this Order is effectively
immediately and shall remain in effect
until February 6, 2022.
Issued this 5th day of February, 2015.
Thomas Andrukonis,
Acting Director, Office of Exporter Services.
[FR Doc. 2015–02912 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–552–801]
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice
of Court Decisions Not in Harmony
With Final Results of Administrative
and New Shipper Reviews and Notice
of Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
AGENCY:
On December 18, 2014, the
United States Court of International
Trade (‘‘the Court’’) issued final
judgments in Catfish Farmers of
America et al. v. United States, Consol.
Court No. 11–00109 and Catfish
Farmers of America et al. v. United
States, Court No. 11–00110, sustaining
the Department of Commerce’s (‘‘the
Department’’) AR6 Remand final results
which included an aligned new shipper
review.1 On December 19, 2014, the
Court issued final judgment in Catfish
Farmers of America et al. v. United
States, Court No. 11–00252, sustaining
the Department’s NSR7 Remand final
results.2 In the AR6 Remand, the
SUMMARY:
1 See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant
To Court Remand, Consol. Court Nos. 11–00109 and
11–00110, Slip Ops. 13–63 and 13–64 (CIT May 23,
2013), dated January 17, 2014, (‘‘AR6 Remand’’)
available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/
13-63&64.pdf.
2 See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant
To Court Remand, Consol. Court No. 11–00252, Slip
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Department recalculated the weightedaverage dumping margin for Vinh Hoan
Corporation (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’) using
revised surrogate values for by-products
(fish waste, broken meat, and fish skin)
and made adjustments for the inventory
changes in the surrogate financial
statements.3 Because Vinh Hoan’s
margin is now above de minimis, it also
becomes the margin for those companies
not individually examined but receiving
a separate rate.4 The margins for the
voluntary respondent Vinh Quang
Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Vinh Quang’’)
and the new shipper Cuu Long Fish
Joint Stock Company (‘‘CL–Fish’’) did
not change and remain de minimis.
In the NSR 7 Remand, the Department
recalculated the weighted-average
dumping margin for IDI Corporation
(‘‘IDI’’) and Thien Ma Seafood Company
(‘‘THIMACO’’) using revised surrogate
values for by-products (fish waste,
broken meat and fish skin).5 However,
the margins for IDI and THIMACO did
not change and remain de minimis.
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 these cases is not
in harmony with the Department’s final
results of the antidumping duty
administrative and new shipper reviews
of the antidumping duty order on
certain frozen fish fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(‘‘Vietnam’’) covering the period of
review August 1, 2008, through July 31,
2009 (‘‘AR6 POR’’), and August 1, 2009,
through February 15, 2010 (‘‘NSR7
POR’’). With respect to the AR6 POR,
the Department is amending the final
results with respect to the weightedaverage dumping margins for Vinh
Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC and South
Op. 13–91 (CIT July 22, 2013), dated January 17,
2014, (‘‘NSR7 Remand’’) available at https://
enforcement.trade.gov/remands/13-91.pdf.
3 See AR6 Remand at 41–46. As we explain
below, the Department’s recalculation of these
surrogate values now yields an above de minimis
weighted-average dumping margin for Vinh Hoan.
Thus, consistent with our practice, the Department
has amended the final results with respect to Vinh
Hoan.
4 These companies include: 1) An Giang Fisheries
Import and Export Joint Stock Company (aka
Agifish or An Giang Fisheries Import and Export);
2) East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company
(formerly known as East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture
Co., Ltd.) (‘‘ESS LLC’’); and 3) Southern Fishery
Industries Co., Ltd. (‘‘South Vina’’).
5 See NSR7 Remand at 39–41.
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM
12FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices
Vina.6 As the rates did not change for
the new shipper reviews, the
Department is not amending those final
results.
DATES: Effective Date: December 29,
2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th
Street and Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)
482–2243.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 22, 2011, the Department
issued AR6 Final Results.7 Vinh Hoan
and Petitioners 8 timely filed complaints
with the Court and challenged certain
aspects of the AR6 Final Results. On
May 23, 2013, the Court remanded the
Department’s AR6 Final Results and
instructed the Department to reconsider
each of the following issues: (1)
Surrogate country selection; (2) the
surrogate values for by-products (fish
waste, broken meat and fish skin); (3)
alleged subsidies in one of the surrogate
financial statements; and (4) ministerial
allegations and effects on margins.9
On June 17, 2011, the Department
issued NSR7 Final Results.10 IDI and
THIMACO and Petitioners timely filed
complaints with the Court and
challenged certain aspects of the NSR7
Final Results. On July 22, 2013, the
Court remanded the Department’s NSR7
Final Results and instructed the
Department to reconsider each of the
following issues: (1) Surrogate country
selection; and (2) the surrogate values
for by-products (fish waste, broken meat
and fish skin).11
On January 17, 2014, the Department
filed the AR6 Remand and NSR7
Remand with the Court. With regard to
the AR6 Remand and NSR7 Remand
issues stated above, first, the
Department maintained the selection of
Bangladesh as the primary country.
Second, the Department selected
different surrogate values for the fish
waste, broken meat, and fish skin byproducts. With regard to the AR6
Remand only, the Department
continued to use the same financial
statements to calculate the surrogate
financial ratios because the record did
not contain evidence to provide a reason
to believe or suspect that a
countervailable subsidy was received
during the relevant financial period. In
addition, we accounted for all
calculation changes as a result of the
original ministerial error allegations and
addressed the issues raised by the Court
regarding the financial statements.
As a result, there are calculation
changes due to selecting different byproduct surrogate values and making an
adjustment for the inventory changes in
the financial statements. With regard to
the AR6 Remand, after accounting for
all such changes and issues, the
resulting antidumping margin for the
only mandatory respondent, Vinh Hoan,
is $0.06 per kilogram. Because Vinh
Hoan’s margin is now above de minimis,
it would also become the margin for
those companies not individually
examined, but receiving a separate rate.
The margins for the voluntary
respondent Vinh Quang and the new
shipper CL-Fish did not change and
remain de minimis. On December 18,
7841
2014, the Court entered judgments
sustaining the AR6 Remand.12
With regard to the NSR7 Remand,
after accounting for all such changes
and issues, the resulting antidumping
margins for IDI and THIMACO remain
de minimis. On December 19, 2014, the
Court entered judgment sustaining the
Remand.13
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at
341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades,
the CAFC held that, pursuant to section
516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (‘‘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
Court’s December 18, 2014, judgment
sustaining the AR6 Remand constitutes
a final decision of the Court that is not
in harmony with the Department’s AR6
Final Results. In addition, the Court’s
December 19, 2014, judgment sustaining
the NSR 7 Remand constitutes a final
decision of the Court that is not in
harmony with the Department’s NSR7
Final Results. This notice is published
in fulfillment of the publication
requirement of Timken.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision, the Department is amending
the AR6 Final Results with respect to
Vinh Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC, and
South Vina. The revised weightedaverage dumping margins for these
exporters during the period April 1,
2009, through March 31, 2010, follow:
Weighted average
dumping margin
(dollars per kilogram)
Exporter name
Vinh Hoan Corporation ..............................................................................................................................................
An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (aka Agifish or An Giang Fisheries Import and Export) ........................................................................................................................................................................
East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company (formerly known as East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.) ..
Southern Fishery Industries Co., Ltd .........................................................................................................................
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Accordingly, the Department will
continue the suspension of liquidation
of the subject merchandise pending the
expiration of the period of appeal or, if
appealed, pending a final and
conclusive court decision. In the event
the Court’s ruling is not appealed or, if
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the
Department will instruct U.S. Customs
6 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist’s Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the
Sixth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
and Sixth New Shipper Review, 76 FR 15941
(March 22, 2011) (‘‘AR6 Final Results’’) and the
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
7 Id.
8 Catfish Farmers of America and the following
individual U.S. catfish processors: America’s Catch,
Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC dba Country
Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest
Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company,
Pride of the Pond, and Simmons Farm Raised
Catfish, Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’).
9 See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United
States, Court No. 11–00109, Slip Op. 13–63 (CIT
May 23, 2013).
10 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the
Antidumping Duty New Shipper Reviews, 76 FR
35403 (June 17, 2011) (‘‘NSR7 Final Results’’).
11 See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United
States, Court No. 11–00252, Slip Op. 13–91 (CIT
July 22, 2013).
12 See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United
States, Court No. 11–00109, Slip. Op. 14–144 (CIT
December 18, 2014); and Catfish Farmers of
America et al. v. United States, Court No. 11–00110,
Slip. Op. 14–145 (CIT December 18, 2014).
13 See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United
States, Court No. 11–00252, Slip. Op. 14–149 (CIT
December 19, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:54 Feb 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM
12FEN1
7842
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 29 / Thursday, February 12, 2015 / Notices
and Border Protection to assess
antidumping duties on unliquidated
entries of subject merchandise exported
by Vinh Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC, and
South Vina using the assessment rate
calculated by the Department in the
Remand and listed above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The cash deposit rate will remain the
respondent-specific rate established for
the subsequent and most-recent period
during which the respondent was
reviewed. The cash deposit rate for the
Vietnam-wide entity, which is 2.39 U.S.
dollars per kilogram, is the rate
established for the subsequent and
most-recent period during which the
Vietnam-wide entity, including ESS
LLC, was reviewed.14
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 3, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015–02973 Filed 2–11–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–570–970]
with respect to entries of subject
merchandise. Interested parties are
invited to comment on this preliminary
determination.
DATES: Effective Date: February 12,
2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Martinelli or Krisha Hill, AD/CVD
Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–2923 or (202) 482–
4037, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On November 24, 2014, Zhejiang
Fuma requested that the Department
initiate an expedited changed
circumstances review to confirm that
Zhejiang Fuma is the successor-ininterest to Huzhou Fuma for purposes of
determining antidumping duty
liabilities.1 We received no comments
opposing Zhejiang Fuma’s request.
On December 22, 2014, the
Department extended the time period
for determining whether to initiate a
changed circumstances review by an
additional 30 days, until February 7,
2015.2
On December 31, 2014 and January
20, 2015, Zhejiang Fuma responded to
supplemental questionnaires issued by
the Department.3
Initiation and Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Duty Changed
Circumstances Review: Multilayered
Wood Flooring From the People’s
Republic of China
Scope of the Order
The merchandise covered by the order
includes multilayered wood flooring,
subject to certain exceptions.4
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce
(‘‘the Department’’) preliminarily
determines that Zhejiang Fuma Warm
Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhejiang Fuma’’)
is the successor-in-interest to Huzhou
Fuma Wood Bus. Co., Ltd. (‘‘Huzhou
Fuma’’) for purposes of the antidumping
duty order on multilayered wood
flooring from the People’s Republic of
China (‘‘PRC’’) and, as such, is entitled
to Huzhou Fuma’s cash deposit rate
1 See Letter from Zhejiang Fuma to the
Department regarding, ‘‘Multilayered Wood
Flooring from the People’s Republic of China:
Request for Expedited Changed Circumstances
Review’’ (November 24, 2014) (‘‘CCR Request’’).
2 See Letter from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director,
Office IV, AD/CVD Operations, to Zhejiang Fuma,
regarding ‘‘Multilayered Wood Flooring From the
People’s Republic of China: Request for a Changed
Circumstances Review’’ (December 22, 2014).
3 See Letter from Zhejiang Fuma to the
Department, regarding ‘‘Multilayered Wood
Flooring from the People’s Republic of China:
Request for Expedited Changed Circumstances
Review’’ (December 31, 2014) (‘‘Supplemental
Response’’); Letter from Zhejiang Fuma to the
Department, regarding ‘‘Multilayered Wood
Flooring from the People’s Republic of China:
Request for Expedited Changes Circumstances
Review’’ (January 20, 2015) (‘‘Second Supplemental
Response’’).
4 For a complete description of the Scope of the
Order, see Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant
Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from
Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations,
‘‘Preliminary Results of Changed Circumstances
Review: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the
People’s Republic of China’’ (‘‘Preliminary Results
Memo’’), dated concurrently with, and adopted by,
this notice.
Rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
14 See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2012–
2013, 80 FR 2394 (January 16, 2015). For ESS LLC
prior to the publication of the final results of review
on January 16, 2015 the cash deposit rate remained
the rate established prior to losing its separate rate
status, which was 1.20 U.S. dollars per kilogram.
See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011–
2012, 79 FR 37714 (July 2, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
13:54 Feb 11, 2015
Jkt 235001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Imports of the subject merchandise
are provided for under the following
subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States
(‘‘HTSUS’’): 4412.31.0520;
4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560;
4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520;
4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050;
4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070;
4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135;
4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165;
4412.31.3175; 4412.31.6000;
4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520;
4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560;
4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520;
4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135;
4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165;
4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185;
4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000;
4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011;
4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019;
4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032;
4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051;
4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059;
4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062;
4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010;
4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050;
4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050;
4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111;
4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131;
4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160;
4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100;
4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000;
4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000;
4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500;
4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020;
4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040;
4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120;
4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140;
4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160;
4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100;
4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5710;
4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000;
4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000;
4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000;
4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000;
4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500.
While HTSUS subheadings are
provided for convenience and customs
purposes, the written description of the
subject merchandise is dispositive.
Initiation of Changed Circumstances
Review
Pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the
Act’’) and 19 CFR 351.216(d), the
Department will conduct a changed
circumstances review upon receipt of
information concerning, or a request
from an interested party for a review of,
an antidumping duty finding which
shows changed circumstances sufficient
to warrant a review of the order. The
information submitted by Zhejiang
Fuma claiming that Zhejiang Fuma is
the successor-in-interest to Huzhou
Fuma demonstrates changed
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM
12FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7840-7842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02973]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-552-801]
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Notice of Court Decisions Not in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative and New Shipper Reviews and Notice of Amended Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: On December 18, 2014, the United States Court of International
Trade (``the Court'') issued final judgments in Catfish Farmers of
America et al. v. United States, Consol. Court No. 11-00109 and Catfish
Farmers of America et al. v. United States, Court No. 11-00110,
sustaining the Department of Commerce's (``the Department'') AR6 Remand
final results which included an aligned new shipper review.\1\ On
December 19, 2014, the Court issued final judgment in Catfish Farmers
of America et al. v. United States, Court No. 11-00252, sustaining the
Department's NSR7 Remand final results.\2\ In the AR6 Remand, the
Department recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin for Vinh
Hoan Corporation (``Vinh Hoan'') using revised surrogate values for by-
products (fish waste, broken meat, and fish skin) and made adjustments
for the inventory changes in the surrogate financial statements.\3\
Because Vinh Hoan's margin is now above de minimis, it also becomes the
margin for those companies not individually examined but receiving a
separate rate.\4\ The margins for the voluntary respondent Vinh Quang
Fisheries Corporation (``Vinh Quang'') and the new shipper Cuu Long
Fish Joint Stock Company (``CL-Fish'') did not change and remain de
minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court
Remand, Consol. Court Nos. 11-00109 and 11-00110, Slip Ops. 13-63
and 13-64 (CIT May 23, 2013), dated January 17, 2014, (``AR6
Remand'') available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/13-63&64.pdf.
\2\ See Final Results Of Redetermination Pursuant To Court
Remand, Consol. Court No. 11-00252, Slip Op. 13-91 (CIT July 22,
2013), dated January 17, 2014, (``NSR7 Remand'') available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/13-91.pdf.
\3\ See AR6 Remand at 41-46. As we explain below, the
Department's recalculation of these surrogate values now yields an
above de minimis weighted-average dumping margin for Vinh Hoan.
Thus, consistent with our practice, the Department has amended the
final results with respect to Vinh Hoan.
\4\ These companies include: 1) An Giang Fisheries Import and
Export Joint Stock Company (aka Agifish or An Giang Fisheries Import
and Export); 2) East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability Company
(formerly known as East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.) (``ESS
LLC''); and 3) Southern Fishery Industries Co., Ltd. (``South
Vina'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the NSR 7 Remand, the Department recalculated the weighted-
average dumping margin for IDI Corporation (``IDI'') and Thien Ma
Seafood Company (``THIMACO'') using revised surrogate values for by-
products (fish waste, broken meat and fish skin).\5\ However, the
margins for IDI and THIMACO did not change and remain de minimis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See NSR7 Remand at 39-41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 these cases is not in harmony with the
Department's final results of the antidumping duty administrative and
new shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen
fish fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (``Vietnam'')
covering the period of review August 1, 2008, through July 31, 2009
(``AR6 POR''), and August 1, 2009, through February 15, 2010 (``NSR7
POR''). With respect to the AR6 POR, the Department is amending the
final results with respect to the weighted-average dumping margins for
Vinh Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC and South
[[Page 7841]]
Vina.\6\ As the rates did not change for the new shipper reviews, the
Department is not amending those final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist's
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Sixth Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review and Sixth New Shipper Review, 76 FR 15941
(March 22, 2011) (``AR6 Final Results'') and the accompanying Issues
and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Effective Date: December 29, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Barrientos, AD/CVD Operations
Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
2243.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On March 22, 2011, the Department issued AR6 Final Results.\7\ Vinh
Hoan and Petitioners \8\ timely filed complaints with the Court and
challenged certain aspects of the AR6 Final Results. On May 23, 2013,
the Court remanded the Department's AR6 Final Results and instructed
the Department to reconsider each of the following issues: (1)
Surrogate country selection; (2) the surrogate values for by-products
(fish waste, broken meat and fish skin); (3) alleged subsidies in one
of the surrogate financial statements; and (4) ministerial allegations
and effects on margins.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Id.
\8\ Catfish Farmers of America and the following individual U.S.
catfish processors: America's Catch, Consolidated Catfish Companies,
LLC dba Country Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest
Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, Pride of the Pond,
and Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, Inc. (collectively,
``Petitioners'').
\9\ See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States,
Court No. 11-00109, Slip Op. 13-63 (CIT May 23, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 17, 2011, the Department issued NSR7 Final Results.\10\ IDI
and THIMACO and Petitioners timely filed complaints with the Court and
challenged certain aspects of the NSR7 Final Results. On July 22, 2013,
the Court remanded the Department's NSR7 Final Results and instructed
the Department to reconsider each of the following issues: (1)
Surrogate country selection; and (2) the surrogate values for by-
products (fish waste, broken meat and fish skin).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty New Shipper
Reviews, 76 FR 35403 (June 17, 2011) (``NSR7 Final Results'').
\11\ See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States,
Court No. 11-00252, Slip Op. 13-91 (CIT July 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 17, 2014, the Department filed the AR6 Remand and NSR7
Remand with the Court. With regard to the AR6 Remand and NSR7 Remand
issues stated above, first, the Department maintained the selection of
Bangladesh as the primary country. Second, the Department selected
different surrogate values for the fish waste, broken meat, and fish
skin by-products. With regard to the AR6 Remand only, the Department
continued to use the same financial statements to calculate the
surrogate financial ratios because the record did not contain evidence
to provide a reason to believe or suspect that a countervailable
subsidy was received during the relevant financial period. In addition,
we accounted for all calculation changes as a result of the original
ministerial error allegations and addressed the issues raised by the
Court regarding the financial statements.
As a result, there are calculation changes due to selecting
different by-product surrogate values and making an adjustment for the
inventory changes in the financial statements. With regard to the AR6
Remand, after accounting for all such changes and issues, the resulting
antidumping margin for the only mandatory respondent, Vinh Hoan, is
$0.06 per kilogram. Because Vinh Hoan's margin is now above de minimis,
it would also become the margin for those companies not individually
examined, but receiving a separate rate. The margins for the voluntary
respondent Vinh Quang and the new shipper CL-Fish did not change and
remain de minimis. On December 18, 2014, the Court entered judgments
sustaining the AR6 Remand.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States,
Court No. 11-00109, Slip. Op. 14-144 (CIT December 18, 2014); and
Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States, Court No. 11-
00110, Slip. Op. 14-145 (CIT December 18, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the NSR7 Remand, after accounting for all such
changes and issues, the resulting antidumping margins for IDI and
THIMACO remain de minimis. On December 19, 2014, the Court entered
judgment sustaining the Remand.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Catfish Farmers of America et al. v. United States,
Court No. 11-00252, Slip. Op. 14-149 (CIT December 19, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``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 Court's December 18, 2014,
judgment sustaining the AR6 Remand constitutes a final decision of the
Court that is not in harmony with the Department's AR6 Final Results.
In addition, the Court's December 19, 2014, judgment sustaining the NSR
7 Remand constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in
harmony with the Department's NSR7 Final Results. This notice is
published in fulfillment of the publication requirement of Timken.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is
amending the AR6 Final Results with respect to Vinh Hoan, Agifish, ESS
LLC, and South Vina. The revised weighted-average dumping margins for
these exporters during the period April 1, 2009, through March 31,
2010, follow:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average dumping
Exporter name margin (dollars per
kilogram)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vinh Hoan Corporation..................... 0.06
An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint 0.06
Stock Company (aka Agifish or An Giang
Fisheries Import and Export).............
East Sea Seafoods Limited Liability 0.06
Company (formerly known as East Sea
Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.)........
Southern Fishery Industries Co., Ltd...... 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of
liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the
period of appeal or, if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court
decision. In the event the Court's ruling is not appealed or, if
appealed, upheld by the CAFC, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs
[[Page 7842]]
and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated
entries of subject merchandise exported by Vinh Hoan, Agifish, ESS LLC,
and South Vina using the assessment rate calculated by the Department
in the Remand and listed above.
Cash Deposit Requirements
The cash deposit rate will remain the respondent-specific rate
established for the subsequent and most-recent period during which the
respondent was reviewed. The cash deposit rate for the Vietnam-wide
entity, which is 2.39 U.S. dollars per kilogram, is the rate
established for the subsequent and most-recent period during which the
Vietnam-wide entity, including ESS LLC, was reviewed.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic
of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2012-2013, 80 FR 2394 (January 16, 2015). For ESS LLC prior to the
publication of the final results of review on January 16, 2015 the
cash deposit rate remained the rate established prior to losing its
separate rate status, which was 1.20 U.S. dollars per kilogram. See
Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:
Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review;
2011-2012, 79 FR 37714 (July 2, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: February 3, 2015.
Paul Piquado,
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-02973 Filed 2-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
