Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results of Administrative Review, 8077-8079 [2019-04045]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2019 / Notices
the in-scope large diameter welded structural
pipe.
Excluded from the scope of this order is
line pipe which is suitable for transporting
oil, gas, slurry, steam, or other fluids, liquids,
or gases, and is normally produced to
American Petroleum Institute (API)
specification 5L or equivalent foreign
specifications grades and/or standards or to
proprietary specifications, grades and/or
standards.
The large diameter welded structural pipe
that is subject to this order is currently
classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under
subheadings 7305.31.4000, 7305.31.6090,
7305.39.1000 and 7305.39.5000. Merchandise
currently classifiable under subheadings
7305.11.1030, 7305.11.1060, 7305.11.5000,
7305.12.1030, 7305.12.1060, 7305.12.5000,
7305.19.1030, 7305.19.1060, and
7305.19.5000 and that otherwise meets the
above scope language is also covered. While
the HTSUS subheadings are provided for
convenience and customs purposes, the
written description of the scope of this order
is dispositive.
[FR Doc. 2019–04049 Filed 3–5–19; 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 Court Decision Not
in Harmony With Final Results of
Administrative Review
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 19, 2019, the
United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or Court) issued its final
judgment, sustaining the Department of
Commerce’s (Commerce’s) final remand
results pertaining to the tenth
administrative review of the
antidumping duty order on certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam)
covering the period of review (POR) of
February 1, 2014, through January 31,
2015. Commerce is notifying the public
that the final judgment in this case is
not in harmony with the final results of
the tenth administrative review, and
that Commerce is amending the final
results with respect to the surrogate
value used to value frozen shrimp in the
administrative review, which results in
amended antidumping duties.
DATES: Applicable March 1, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations
Office VIII, Enforcement and
Compliance, International Trade
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Mar 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone:
(202) 482–6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 3, 2015, Commerce initiated
an administrative review of 195
producers and exporters of certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam
for the period February 1, 2014, through
January 31, 2015.1 Commerce
individually examined Soc Trang
Seafood Joint Stock Company, also
known as Stapimex.2 We issued the
Final Results on September 12, 2016.3
Because Vietnam continues to be a
non-market economy (NME) country,4
pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act,
we based normal value on the NME
producer’s factors of production (FOPs),
valued in a surrogate market economy
country considered to be appropriate.5
Upon evaluating the surrogate country
selection criteria, including the
availability of surrogate value data on
the record,6 we selected Bangladesh
over other countries primarily due to
data availability considerations.7 No
interested parties challenged
Commerce’s surrogate country selection.
In the Final Results, among other
issues, we addressed arguments
regarding the frozen shrimp surrogate
value and our denial of byproduct
offsets for packing materials claimed as
byproducts. We made no changes in the
Final Results regarding these two
issues.8 With respect to the frozen
1 See Initiation of Antidumping and
Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR
18202 (April 3, 2015) (Initiation Notice). While
there were 195 individual names upon which we
initiated an administrative review, the number of
actual companies initiated upon is 99, due to
variations of names requested by multiple
interested parties and the groupings of companies
that we have previously collapsed.
2 See Memorandum, ‘‘Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Selection of Respondents for Individual
Examination,’’ dated April 29, 2015.
3 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2014–
2015, 81 FR 62717 (September 12, 2016) (Final
Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum.
4 See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of
1930, as amended (the Act).
5 See sections 773(c)(1) and (4) of the Act.
6 See Final Results at Comment 2, citing to
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and
Partial Rescission of Review; 2014–2015, 81 FR
12702 (March 10, 2016) (Preliminary Results) and
accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum
at 14–17.
7 Id.
8 See Final Results at Comment 2 (‘‘Fresh
unprocessed shrimp is a different input from frozen
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
8077
shrimp surrogate value, we explained
that ‘‘{b}ecause our strong preference is
to value all inputs from a single
surrogate country, we valued frozen
shrimp using the Bangladeshi UN
Comtrade data.’’ 9 We further explained
that ‘‘{a}lthough the Indian GTA {data}
are contemporaneous, whereas
Bangladeshi UN Comtrade data are not,
this consideration does not outweigh
our preference to remain within the
primary surrogate country.’’ 10
After the conclusion of the
administrative review, several interested
parties challenged various
determinations made in the Final
Results. The Court affirmed all the
challenged determinations, but
remanded two issues for further
explanation or reconsideration.11
Specifically, in the Remand Opinion
and Order, the Court ordered Commerce
to reconsider or further explain: (1) its
reliance on Bangladeshi UN Comtrade
data to value purchased frozen shrimp
using Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) 0306.13 from among the other
frozen shrimp surrogate value data on
the record, namely the India Global
Trade Atlas (GTA) surrogate value data
under HTS 0306.17; and (2) its denial of
a byproduct offset for the claimed
byproduct related to ‘‘packaging.’’ 12
In the Remand Redetermination, and
consistent with the Remand Opinion
and Order, Commerce reconsidered the
surrogate value used to value frozen
shrimp and recalculated the sole
mandatory respondent’s dumping
margin accordingly.13 Further, as
directed by the Court, we explained our
denial of the mandatory respondent’s
request for an offset of packing materials
claimed as byproducts to the cost of
manufacturing in determining normal
semi-processed shrimp, which we consider to be an
intermediate, processed input. Accordingly, these
inputs must be reported separately and valued
appropriately, which in this instance means
applying different SVs to each. . . We continue to
value frozen shrimp using Bangladeshi UN
Comtrade data, as it satisfies our surrogate value
selection criteria and is from the primary surrogate
country’’) and Comment 8 (‘‘consistent with our
established practice, packing for direct materials,
which are discarded (or sold as scrap) prior to
entering the production process for subject
merchandise, do not qualify as ’byproducts’’’).
9 Id. at Comment 2B.
10 Id.
11 See Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company
and Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 16–00205, Slip
Op. 18–75 (June 21, 2018) (Remand Opinion and
Order).
12 Id. at 40.
13 See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant
to Court Remand, dated September 18, 2018, at 6–
9 and 13–20 (Remand Redetermination); available
at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/18–
75.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
06MRN1
8078
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2019 / Notices
value.14 The Court sustained our
Remand Redetermination on both
issues.15
In the Final Results, we calculated a
4.78 percent weighted-average margin
for the sole mandatory respondent
Stapimex.16 Based on our remand
recalculations, the final margin for
Stapimex in this administrative review
changes from 4.78 percent to 0.71
percent.17
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,18 as
clarified by Diamond Sawblades,19 the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of
the Act, Commerce must publish a
notice of a court decision that is not ‘‘in
harmony’’ with a Commerce
determination and must suspend
liquidation of entries pending a
‘‘conclusive’’ court decision. The CIT’s
February 19, 2019, Final Judgment
sustaining Commerce’s Remand
Redetermination with respect to using
the India GTA surrogate value data
under HTS 0306.17 to value frozen
shrimp constitutes a final decision of
that court that is not in harmony with
the Final Results.
This notice is published in fulfillment
of the publication requirement of
Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will
continue the suspension of liquidation
of the subject merchandise at issue in
the Remand Redetermination pending
expiration of the period of appeal or, if
appealed, a final and conclusive court
decision.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court
decision with respect to this case,20
Commerce is amending the Final
Results. Based on the Remand
Redetermination, as affirmed by the
Court on February 19, 2019, the revised
weighted-average dumping margin for
Stapimex, for the period February 1,
2014, through January 31, 2015, is 0.71
percent. Further, as the rate assigned to
companies that qualified for a separate
rate in this review was based on
Stapimex’s calculated rate,21 we will
accordingly apply Stapimex’s revised
margin as the rate applicable to the 27
separate-rate recipients which are
parties to this litigation.
In the event that the CIT’s ruling is
not appealed or, if appealed, is upheld
by a final and conclusive court decision,
Commerce will instruct U.S. Customs
and Border Protection to assess
antidumping duties on unliquidated
entries of subject merchandise based on:
Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company ................................................................................
C.P. Vietnam Corporation ........................................................................................................
Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company ............................
Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation, aka Camau Seafood Factory No. 4.
Can Tho Import Export Fishery Limited Company ..................................................................
Camau Seafood Processing and Service Joint Stock Corporation .........................................
Cuu Long Seaproducts Company ...........................................................................................
Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation .........................................................................
Kim Anh Company Limited, aka Kim Anh Co., Ltd .................................................................
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company ......................................
Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company ............................................................
Ngoc Tri Seafood Joint Stock Company .................................................................................
Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company .............................................................................
Nha Trang Seafoods Group: Nha Trang Seaproduct Company, aka NT Seafoods Corporation, aka Nha Trang Seafoods—F89 Joint Stock Company, aka NTSF Seafoods Joint
Stock Company.
Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp ...................................................................................................
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company, aka Fimex VN, aka Saota Seafood Factory ...............
Seaprimexco Vietnam ..............................................................................................................
Thong Thuan Company Limited, aka T&T Co., Ltd ................................................................
at 9–13 and 20–24.
Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company
and Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 16–00205, Slip
Op. 19–23 (February 19, 2019) (Final Judgement) at
12.
16 See Final Results, 81 FR at 62718.
17 See Remand Redetermination at 25.
18 See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337,
341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).
19 See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v.
United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
(Diamond Sawblades).
15 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Mar 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
Cash Deposit Requirements
Mandatory Respondent
Because there have been no
subsequent administrative reviews
completed for mandatory respondent,
Stapimex,23 the recalculated cash
deposit rate of 0.71 percent will be the
rate established for Stapimex in these
amended final results.
Separate-Rate Companies
With respect to the 27 nonindividually examined companies that
qualified for a separate rate in the tenth
administrative review and are subject to
this litigation, there have been
subsequent administrative reviews
completed for the exporters listed
below; thus, the cash deposit rate for
these exporters will remain the rate
established in the most recentlycompleted administrative review in
which they received a cash deposit rate:
Cash
deposit rate in
effect
(percent)
Exporter
14 Id.
(1) the non-public importer-specific
assessment rates recalculated in the
Remand Redetermination for
Stapimex 22 and (2) the above-noted 0.71
percent revised rate for the nonindividually examined respondents that
received a separate rate in the Final
Results and are subject to this litigation.
20 See
Final Judgement.
Final Results and accompanying Issues and
Decision Memorandum at Comment 7, as affirmed
in Remand Opinion and Order.
22 See Remand Redetermination, citing to
Memorandum to the File, re: ‘‘Remand
Redetermination—Revised Final Results
Calculations,’’ dated August 6, 2018, at Attachment
2, which contains the SAS Output generated for
Stapimex, and displays the revised, non-public
importer-specific assessment rates for all importers
that Stapimex reported in its questionnaire
responses (see Stapimex’s Section C Questionnaire
21 See
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Federal Register
notice
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
Final
Final
Final
Final
Results.24
Results.
Results.
Results.
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
25 25.76
4.58
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
Final
Final
Final
Final
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
Response, dated June 22, 2015, at 11–12 under
ACCESS Barcode 3285551–01).
23 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial
Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review; 2015–2016, 81 FR 46047 (July 15, 2016)
(AR11 Partial Rescission) at Appendix I, and
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016–
2017, 82 FR 37563 (August 11, 2017) (AR12 Partial
Rescission).
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
06MRN1
8079
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 6, 2019 / Notices
Cash
deposit rate in
effect
(percent)
Exporter
Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation ...................................................................
UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation ......................................................................
Viet Foods Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................
Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd ...................................................
Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation .......................................................................................
With respect to the non-individually
examined companies listed below that
qualified for a separate rate in the tenth
administrative review and are subject to
this litigation, there have been either: (1)
No subsequent administrative reviews
completed for these exporters because
they were rescinded from review,26 or
(2) these exporters certified they had no
shipments in subsequent reviews; 27
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
4.58
Federal Register
notice
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
AR12
Final
Final
Final
Final
Final
thus, the cash deposit rate of 0.71
percent, as recalculated in the Remand
Redetermination, applies to these
companies:
Cash deposit rate
in effect
(percent)
Exporter
Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd ...............................................................................
Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................
Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................
Trong Nhan Seafood Company Limited ..................................................................................................................................
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in
accordance with sections 516A(e)(1),
751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 1, 2019.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping
and Countervailing Duty Operations
performing the non-exclusive functions and
duties of the Assistant Secretary for
Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019–04045 Filed 3–5–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Commerce (Commerce) and the
International Trade Commission (ITC),
Commerce is issuing an antidumping
duty order on large diameter welded
carbon and alloy steel line pipe from
India.
DATES:
Applicable March 6, 2019.
Kate
Johnson at (202) 482–4929 or Jaron
Moore at (202) 482–3640, AD/CVD
Operations, Enforcement and
Compliance, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20230.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
International Trade Administration
Enforcement and Compliance,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: Based on affirmative final
determinations by the Department of
On November 14, 2018, Commerce
published its affirmative final
determination in the less-than-fair-value
(LTFV) investigation of large diameter
welded pipe from India.1 The scope of
the investigation in Commerce’s final
determination covered large diameter
welded carbon and alloy steel line pipe
(welded line pipe), large diameter
welded carbon and alloy steel structural
pipe (welded structural pipe), and
24 See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from
the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2016–
2017, 83 FR 46704 (September 14, 2018) (AR12
Final Results).
25 See AR12 Final Results at Appendix II.
26 In addition to Stapimex, as noted above, both
Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and
Import-Export Co., Ltd. and Viet I-Mei Frozen
Foods Co., Ltd. were rescinded from the eleventh
and twelfth antidumping duty administrative
reviews. See AR11 Partial Rescission at Appendix
I and AR12 Partial Rescission, 82 FR at 37563.
27 Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd. and Trong Nhan
Seafood Company Limited both certified they had
no shipments of subject merchandise in the
eleventh and twelfth administrative reviews, with
no information on those records contradicting their
certifications. Neither of these companies received
revised cash deposit rates in the final results of the
eleventh and twelfth administrative reviews. See
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 2015–
2016, 82 FR 11431–11432 (February 23, 2017) and
AR12 Final Results, 83 FR at 46704, respectively.
1 See Large Diameter Welded Pipe from India:
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair
Value; 2017, 83 FR 56811 (November 14, 2018).
2 Id.
[A–533–881]
Large Diameter Welded Pipe From
India: Antidumping Duty Order
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Mar 05, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
Results.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.71
stainless steel large diameter welded
pipe (stainless steel pipe) from India.2
As discussed below, the ITC
subsequently found three domestic like
products covered by the scope of the
investigation (welded line pipe, welded
structural pipe, and stainless steel pipe)
and accordingly made a separate injury
determination with respect to each
domestic like product. On January 30,
2019, the ITC notified Commerce of its
final determination, pursuant to 735(d)
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended
(the Act), that an industry in the United
States is materially injured within the
meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the
Act, by reason of LTFV imports of
welded line pipe from India.3
Additionally, the ITC made a
negligibility determination with respect
to welded structural pipe and a negative
determination of material injury or
threat of material injury with respect to
stainless steel pipe.4 On February 13,
2019, Commerce released draft revised
scope language for comment by parties.
No party objected to the revised scope
language in this proceeding.
3 See ITC Notification Letter to the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and
Compliance, referencing ITC Investigation Nos.
701–TA–593–594, 731–TA–1402, and 731–TA–
1404 (January 30, 2019) (ITC Notification). See also
Large Diameter Welded Pipe from China and India;
Determinations, 84 FR 1785 (February 5, 2019) (ITC
Final Determination) and Large Diameter Welded
Pipe from China and India, Investigation Nos. 701–
TA–593–594, 731–TA–1402 and 731–TA–1404
(Final), Publication 4859, January 2019 (Final ITC
Report).
4 Id.
E:\FR\FM\06MRN1.SGM
06MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8077-8079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04045]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
AGENCY: Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On February 19, 2019, the United States Court of International
Trade (CIT or Court) issued its final judgment, sustaining the
Department of Commerce's (Commerce's) final remand results pertaining
to the tenth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam
(Vietnam) covering the period of review (POR) of February 1, 2014,
through January 31, 2015. Commerce is notifying the public that the
final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the final results of
the tenth administrative review, and that Commerce is amending the
final results with respect to the surrogate value used to value frozen
shrimp in the administrative review, which results in amended
antidumping duties.
DATES: Applicable March 1, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations
Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC, 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On April 3, 2015, Commerce initiated an administrative review of
195 producers and exporters of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from
Vietnam for the period February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.\1\
Commerce individually examined Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company,
also known as Stapimex.\2\ We issued the Final Results on September 12,
2016.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 18202 (April 3, 2015) (Initiation
Notice). While there were 195 individual names upon which we
initiated an administrative review, the number of actual companies
initiated upon is 99, due to variations of names requested by
multiple interested parties and the groupings of companies that we
have previously collapsed.
\2\ See Memorandum, ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of
Vietnam: Selection of Respondents for Individual Examination,''
dated April 29, 2015.
\3\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 2014- 2015, 81 FR 62717 (September 12, 2016)
(Final Results) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Vietnam continues to be a non-market economy (NME)
country,\4\ pursuant to section 773(c)(1) of the Act, we based normal
value on the NME producer's factors of production (FOPs), valued in a
surrogate market economy country considered to be appropriate.\5\ Upon
evaluating the surrogate country selection criteria, including the
availability of surrogate value data on the record,\6\ we selected
Bangladesh over other countries primarily due to data availability
considerations.\7\ No interested parties challenged Commerce's
surrogate country selection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended (the Act).
\5\ See sections 773(c)(1) and (4) of the Act.
\6\ See Final Results at Comment 2, citing to Certain Frozen
Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial
Rescission of Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 12702 (March 10, 2016)
(Preliminary Results) and accompanying Preliminary Decision
Memorandum at 14-17.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Final Results, among other issues, we addressed arguments
regarding the frozen shrimp surrogate value and our denial of byproduct
offsets for packing materials claimed as byproducts. We made no changes
in the Final Results regarding these two issues.\8\ With respect to the
frozen shrimp surrogate value, we explained that ``{b{time} ecause our
strong preference is to value all inputs from a single surrogate
country, we valued frozen shrimp using the Bangladeshi UN Comtrade
data.'' \9\ We further explained that ``{a{time} lthough the Indian GTA
{data{time} are contemporaneous, whereas Bangladeshi UN Comtrade data
are not, this consideration does not outweigh our preference to remain
within the primary surrogate country.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Final Results at Comment 2 (``Fresh unprocessed shrimp
is a different input from frozen semi-processed shrimp, which we
consider to be an intermediate, processed input. Accordingly, these
inputs must be reported separately and valued appropriately, which
in this instance means applying different SVs to each. . . We
continue to value frozen shrimp using Bangladeshi UN Comtrade data,
as it satisfies our surrogate value selection criteria and is from
the primary surrogate country'') and Comment 8 (``consistent with
our established practice, packing for direct materials, which are
discarded (or sold as scrap) prior to entering the production
process for subject merchandise, do not qualify as 'byproducts''').
\9\ Id. at Comment 2B.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the conclusion of the administrative review, several
interested parties challenged various determinations made in the Final
Results. The Court affirmed all the challenged determinations, but
remanded two issues for further explanation or reconsideration.\11\
Specifically, in the Remand Opinion and Order, the Court ordered
Commerce to reconsider or further explain: (1) its reliance on
Bangladeshi UN Comtrade data to value purchased frozen shrimp using
Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) 0306.13 from among the other frozen
shrimp surrogate value data on the record, namely the India Global
Trade Atlas (GTA) surrogate value data under HTS 0306.17; and (2) its
denial of a byproduct offset for the claimed byproduct related to
``packaging.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company and Ca Mau
Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, Consol. Court No. 16-
00205, Slip Op. 18-75 (June 21, 2018) (Remand Opinion and Order).
\12\ Id. at 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Remand Redetermination, and consistent with the Remand
Opinion and Order, Commerce reconsidered the surrogate value used to
value frozen shrimp and recalculated the sole mandatory respondent's
dumping margin accordingly.\13\ Further, as directed by the Court, we
explained our denial of the mandatory respondent's request for an
offset of packing materials claimed as byproducts to the cost of
manufacturing in determining normal
[[Page 8078]]
value.\14\ The Court sustained our Remand Redetermination on both
issues.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court
Remand, dated September 18, 2018, at 6-9 and 13-20 (Remand
Redetermination); available at https://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/18-75.pdf.
\14\ Id. at 9-13 and 20-24.
\15\ See Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company and Ca Mau
Seafood Joint Stock Company v. United States, Consol. Court No. 16-
00205, Slip Op. 19-23 (February 19, 2019) (Final Judgement) at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Final Results, we calculated a 4.78 percent weighted-average
margin for the sole mandatory respondent Stapimex.\16\ Based on our
remand recalculations, the final margin for Stapimex in this
administrative review changes from 4.78 percent to 0.71 percent.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See Final Results, 81 FR at 62718.
\17\ See Remand Redetermination at 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timken Notice
In its decision in Timken,\18\ as clarified by Diamond
Sawblades,\19\ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that,
pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, Commerce must publish a notice
of a court decision that is not ``in harmony'' with a Commerce
determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a
``conclusive'' court decision. The CIT's February 19, 2019, Final
Judgment sustaining Commerce's Remand Redetermination with respect to
using the India GTA surrogate value data under HTS 0306.17 to value
frozen shrimp constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in
harmony with the Final Results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed.
Cir. 1990) (Timken).
\19\ See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626
F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication
requirement of Timken. Accordingly, Commerce will continue the
suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise at issue in the
Remand Redetermination pending expiration of the period of appeal or,
if appealed, a final and conclusive court decision.
Amended Final Results
Because there is now a final court decision with respect to this
case,\20\ Commerce is amending the Final Results. Based on the Remand
Redetermination, as affirmed by the Court on February 19, 2019, the
revised weighted-average dumping margin for Stapimex, for the period
February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015, is 0.71 percent. Further,
as the rate assigned to companies that qualified for a separate rate in
this review was based on Stapimex's calculated rate,\21\ we will
accordingly apply Stapimex's revised margin as the rate applicable to
the 27 separate-rate recipients which are parties to this litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See Final Judgement.
\21\ See Final Results and accompanying Issues and Decision
Memorandum at Comment 7, as affirmed in Remand Opinion and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the event that the CIT's ruling is not appealed or, if appealed,
is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, Commerce will
instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping
duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on: (1) the
non-public importer-specific assessment rates recalculated in the
Remand Redetermination for Stapimex \22\ and (2) the above-noted 0.71
percent revised rate for the non-individually examined respondents that
received a separate rate in the Final Results and are subject to this
litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ See Remand Redetermination, citing to Memorandum to the
File, re: ``Remand Redetermination--Revised Final Results
Calculations,'' dated August 6, 2018, at Attachment 2, which
contains the SAS Output generated for Stapimex, and displays the
revised, non-public importer-specific assessment rates for all
importers that Stapimex reported in its questionnaire responses (see
Stapimex's Section C Questionnaire Response, dated June 22, 2015, at
11-12 under ACCESS Barcode 3285551-01).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash Deposit Requirements
Mandatory Respondent
Because there have been no subsequent administrative reviews
completed for mandatory respondent, Stapimex,\23\ the recalculated cash
deposit rate of 0.71 percent will be the rate established for Stapimex
in these amended final results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 81 FR 46047 (July 15, 2016) (AR11
Partial Rescission) at Appendix I, and Certain Frozen Warmwater
Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2016-2017, 82 FR 37563
(August 11, 2017) (AR12 Partial Rescission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separate-Rate Companies
With respect to the 27 non-individually examined companies that
qualified for a separate rate in the tenth administrative review and
are subject to this litigation, there have been subsequent
administrative reviews completed for the exporters listed below; thus,
the cash deposit rate for these exporters will remain the rate
established in the most recently-completed administrative review in
which they received a cash deposit rate:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash deposit
Exporter rate in effect Federal Register
(percent) notice
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock 4.58 AR12 Final
Company. Results.\24\
C.P. Vietnam Corporation.......... 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
and Processing Joint Stock
Company.
Camau Frozen Seafood Processing 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Import Export Corporation, aka
Camau Seafood Factory No. 4.
Can Tho Import Export Fishery 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Limited Company.
Camau Seafood Processing and 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Service Joint Stock Corporation.
Cuu Long Seaproducts Company...... 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Investment Commerce Fisheries 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Corporation.
Kim Anh Company Limited, aka Kim 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Anh Co., Ltd.
Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Processing Joint-Stock Company.
Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Processing Company.
Ngoc Tri Seafood Joint Stock 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Company.
Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock \25\ 25.76 AR12 Final Results.
Company.
Nha Trang Seafoods Group: Nha 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Trang Seaproduct Company, aka NT
Seafoods Corporation, aka Nha
Trang Seafoods--F89 Joint Stock
Company, aka NTSF Seafoods Joint
Stock Company.
Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp......... 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company, 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
aka Fimex VN, aka Saota Seafood
Factory.
Seaprimexco Vietnam............... 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Thong Thuan Company Limited, aka 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
T&T Co., Ltd.
[[Page 8079]]
Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Corporation.
UTXI Aquatic Products Processing 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Corporation.
Viet Foods Co., Ltd............... 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd., aka 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd.
Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation. 4.58 AR12 Final Results.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the non-individually examined companies listed
below that qualified for a separate rate in the tenth administrative
review and are subject to this litigation, there have been either: (1)
No subsequent administrative reviews completed for these exporters
because they were rescinded from review,\26\ or (2) these exporters
certified they had no shipments in subsequent reviews; \27\ thus, the
cash deposit rate of 0.71 percent, as recalculated in the Remand
Redetermination, applies to these companies:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 2016-2017, 83 FR 46704 (September 14, 2018)
(AR12 Final Results).
\25\ See AR12 Final Results at Appendix II.
\26\ In addition to Stapimex, as noted above, both Quoc Viet
Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd. and Viet
I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. were rescinded from the eleventh and
twelfth antidumping duty administrative reviews. See AR11 Partial
Rescission at Appendix I and AR12 Partial Rescission, 82 FR at
37563.
\27\ Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd. and Trong Nhan Seafood Company
Limited both certified they had no shipments of subject merchandise
in the eleventh and twelfth administrative reviews, with no
information on those records contradicting their certifications.
Neither of these companies received revised cash deposit rates in
the final results of the eleventh and twelfth administrative
reviews. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist
Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 2015- 2016, 82 FR 11431-11432 (February 23,
2017) and AR12 Final Results, 83 FR at 46704, respectively.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cash deposit rate in effect
Exporter (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing 0.71
Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd.
Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.... 0.71
Quang Minh Seafood Co., Ltd......... 0.71
Trong Nhan Seafood Company Limited.. 0.71
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification to Interested Parties
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections
516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Dated: March 1, 2019.
Gary Taverman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty
Operations performing the non-exclusive functions and duties of the
Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-04045 Filed 3-5-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
