12044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

13Effective January 16, 2009, there is no longer 

a cash deposit requirement for certain producers/ 

exporters in accordance with the Implementation of 

the Findings of the WTO Panel in United States 

Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Thailand: 

Notice of Determination under Section 129 of the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial 

Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 74 FR 

5638 (Jan. 30, 2009) (Section 129 Determination). 

practice. See Bearings from France, 75 

FR at 53663. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate without regard to 

antidumping duties any entries for 

which the assessment rate is de 

minimis. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. See 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy 

Notice. This clarification will apply to 

entries of subject merchandise during 

the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) 

The cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

this review, or the original less-thanfair-value (LTFV) investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 5.34 

percent, the all-others rate made 

effective by the Section 129 

Determination.13 These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary 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 review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4978 Filed 3–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: 

Preliminary Results of, and Partial 

Rescission of, the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, and Intent Not 

To Revoke the Order, in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on stainless 

steel bar (‘‘SS Bar’’) from India for the 

period of review (‘‘POR’’) February 1, 

2009, through January 31, 2010. The 

Department initiated this review of 

Facor Steels Ltd./Ferro Alloys 

Corporation, Ltd. (‘‘Facor’’); Mukand, 

Ltd. (‘‘Mukand’’); India Steel Works, 

Limited (‘‘India Steel’’); and Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Venus Wire’’) and 

its affiliates Precision Metals and Sieves 

Manufacturers (India) Private Limited 

(‘‘Sieves’’). Based on timely withdrawal 

of the request for review, the 

Department is rescinding the review 

with respect to India Steel. 

We preliminarily determine Venus 

Wire, Mukand and Facor made sales of 

the subject merchandise at prices below 

normal value (‘‘NV’’). The Department 

also preliminarily determines that total 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) is 

warranted for Mukand because it failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability in 

this proceeding. Finally, we have 

preliminarily determined not to revoke 

the antidumping duty order on SS Bar 

from India with respect to SS Bar 

exported and/or sold by Venus Wire. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. If 

these preliminary results are adopted in 

our final results of review, we will 

instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on appropriate 

entries. We will issue the final results 

no later than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth 

Isenberg, Mahnaz Khan, Austin 

Redington, Scott Holland or Yasmin 

Nair, AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington 

DC 20230; telephone (202) 482–0588, 

(202) 482–0914, (202) 482–1664, (202) 

482–1279 or (202) 482–3813, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 21, 1995, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on SS Bar from 

India. See Antidumping Duty Orders: 

Stainless Steel Bar from Brazil, India 

and Japan, 60 FR 9661 (February 21, 

1995) (‘‘the Order’’). On February 1, 

2010, the Department published a notice 

of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the Order on 

SS Bar from India for the period 

February 1, 2009, through January 31, 

2010. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 5037 (February 1, 2010). 

On February 24, 2010, Venus Wire 

submitted a request, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.222(e), that the Department 

revoke the Order with respect to Venus 

Wire’s sales of the subject merchandise 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12045 

to the United States. In this submission, 

Venus Wire also timely requested an 

administrative review of the Order for 

the POR. See Letter from Venus Wire 

requesting revocation and an 

administrative review, dated February 

22, 2010, which is on file in the Central 

Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’) in room 7046 in 

the main Department building. 

On February 26, 2010, domestic 

interested parties Carpenter Technology 

Corp.; Crucible Specialty Metals, a 

division of Crucible Materials Corp.; 

Electralloy Co., a G.O. Carlson, Inc. 

company; and Valbruna Slater Stainless, 

Inc. (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’), timely 

filed a request for administrative review 

of Venus Wire, Facor, Mukand, and 

India Steel, and their respective 

affiliates. See Petitioners’ request for 

administrative review, dated February 

26, 2010, on file in the CRU. 

On March 30, 2010, in accordance 

with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), we 

initiated an administrative review 

covering Venus Wire and its affiliates 

Precision Metal and Sieves; Facor; 

Mukand; and India Steel. See Initiation 

of Antidumping and Countervailing 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Request for Revocation in Part, 75 FR 

15679 (March 30, 2010). On April 7, 

2010, Petitioners timely withdrew their 

request for administrative review of 

India Steel. 

On April 13, 2010, the Department 

issued antidumping duty questionnaires 

to Venus Wire, Mukand, and Facor. 

Venus Wire, Mukand, and Facor 

submitted timely filed responses to the 

antidumping questionnaire in May and 

June 2010. The Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires to Venus 

Wire, Mukand, and Facor to clarify or 

correct information contained in the 

initial questionnaire responses. 

We received timely filed responses to 

supplemental questionnaires from 

Venus Wire (and its collapsed affiliates, 

see Affiliation section, below) from 

August 2010 through February 2011. We 

received timely filed responses to 

supplemental questionnaires from 

Mukand from July 2010 through 

February 2011. We received timely filed 

responses to supplemental 

questionnaires from Facor from June 

2010 through February 2011. 

On October 25, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

extension of the time limit for the 

completion of the preliminary results of 

this review until no later than February 

28, 2011, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.213(h)(2). See Stainless Steel Bar 

From India: Extension of Time Limit for 

the Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 65449 (October 25, 2010). 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 1, 2009, through 

January 31, 2010. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the Order are 

shipments of SS Bar. SS Bar means 

articles of stainless steel in straight 

lengths that have been either hot-rolled, 

forged, turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled 

or otherwise cold-finished, or ground, 

having a uniform solid cross section 

along their whole length in the shape of 

circles, segments of circles, ovals, 

rectangles (including squares), triangles, 

hexagons, octagons, or other convex 

polygons. SS Bar includes cold-finished 

SS Bars that are turned or ground in 

straight lengths, whether produced from 

hot-rolled bar or from straightened and 

cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that 

have indentations, ribs, grooves, or 

other deformations produced during the 

rolling process. 

Except as specified above, the term 

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut-to-length flatrolled products (i.e., cut-to-length rolled 

products which if less than 4.75 mm in 

thickness have a width measuring at 

least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 

mm or more in thickness having a width 

which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 

least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., 

cold-formed products in coils, of any 

uniform solid cross section along their 

whole length, which do not conform to 

the definition of flat-rolled products), 

and angles, shapes, and sections. 

The SS Bar subject to this review is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 

7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 

7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 

7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of the 

Order is dispositive. 

On May 23, 2005, the Department 

issued a final scope ruling that SS Bar 

manufactured in the United Arab 

Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod 

from India is not subject to the scope of 

the Order. See Memorandum from Team 

to Barbara E. Tillman, ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from 

India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 

India: Final Scope Ruling,’’ dated May 

23, 2005, which is on file in the CRU. 

See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 

55110 (September 20, 2005). 

Rescission of the Review in Part 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

that requested the review withdraws the 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the initiation notice of 

the requested review. Further, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department 

is permitted to extend this time if it is 

reasonable to do so. 

Petitioners were the only party to 

request an administrative review of 

India Steel on February 26, 2010, and on 

April 7, 2010, Petitioners timely 

withdrew this request. Therefore, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), 

we are rescinding this review with 

respect to India Steel. 

Affiliation 

Precision Metals 

In the 2005–2006 antidumping duty 

administrative review of SS Bar from 

India, the Department determined that 

Venus Wire and Precision Metals were 

affiliated within the meaning of section 

771(33) of the Act, and that these two 

companies should be treated as a single 

entity for the purposes of that 

administrative review. See Notice of 

Final Results and Final Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 72 FR 51595, 51596 

(September 10, 2007) (‘‘2005–2006 Final 

Results’’). In the 2007–2008 and 2008– 

2009 antidumping duty administrative 

reviews of SS Bar from India, the 

Department again determined that these 

two companies should be treated as a 

single entity. See Stainless Steel Bar 

From India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 47198 (September 15, 

2009) (‘‘2007–2008 Final Results’’); see 

also Stainless Steel Bar From India: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 54090 

(September 3, 2010) (‘‘2008–2009 Final 

Results’’). 

The Department re-examined Venus 

Wire’s corporate affiliation relationship 

with Precision Metals for the instant 

administrative review. Because this 

relationship is unchanged from the 

2005–2006 Final Results, 2007–2008 

Final Results, and 2008–2009 Final 

Results, the Department continues to 

treat Venus Wire and Precision Metals 

as a single entity for the instant review. 

See Venus Wire’s May 24, 2010 section 

A questionnaire response (‘‘AQR’’) at A– 

2, 4–13. See also Memorandum from 

Austin Redington to the File, 

‘‘Relationship of Venus Wire Industries 

Pvt. Ltd. and Precision Metals,’’ dated 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12046 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

May 20, 2010, which is on file in the 

CRU. 

Sieves 

In the 2007–2008 and 2008–2009 

administrative reviews, the Department 

determined that Venus Wire and Sieves 

are affiliated within the meaning of 

section 771(33) of the Act, and that 

these two companies should be treated 

as a single entity for purposes of those 

administrative reviews. See 2007–2008 

Final Results; see also 2008–2009 Final 

Results. 

The Department re-examined Venus 

Wire’s corporate affiliation relationship 

with Sieves for the instant 

administrative review. Because this 

relationship is unchanged from the 

2007–2008 Final Results and 2008–2009 

Final Results, the Department continues 

to treat Venus Wire and Precision 

Metals as a single entity for the instant 

review. See Venus Wire’s May 24, 2010 

section AQR at A–2, 4–13. See also 

Memorandum from Austin Redington to 

the File, ‘‘Relationship of Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves 

Manufacturers (India) Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated 

May 20, 2010, which is on file in the 

CRU. 

Hindustan Inox (Formerly Hindustan 

Stainless) 

In the 2008–2009 administrative 

review, Petitioners alleged that 

Hindustan Inox (‘‘Hindustan’’), formerly 

known as Hindustan Stainless, should 

be collapsed with Venus Wire. See 

Petitioners’ June 12, 2009, and January 

29, 2010, filings. After reviewing record 

information in that proceeding, the 

Department determined that because 

Hindustan was not a producer/exporter 

of SS Bar during that POR, it should not 

be collapsed with Venus Wire for the 

purposes of that administrative review. 

See 2008–2009 Final Results. 

In the current administrative review, 

the Department re-examined 

Hindustan’s operations and sales 

information. The Department 

determined that Hindustan was a 

producer/exporter of SS Bar during the 

instant POR. The Department also 

determined that, according to 

information presented in Venus Wire’s 

and Hindustan’s responses to the 

Department’s questionnaires, Venus 

Wire and Hindustan are affiliated 

within the meaning of section 771(33) of 

the Act. See Venus Wire’s section AQR 

at A–5–13; see also Hindustan’s August 

19, 2010 section AQR. The Department 

issued a memorandum announcing the 

collapsing of Venus Wire and Hindustan 

for the preliminary results and gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment. See Memorandum to the File 

‘‘Whether to Collapse Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt., Ltd. and Hindustan Inox 

in the Preliminary Results,’’ dated July 

20, 2010, which is on file in the CRU. 

No comments were received. Therefore, 

for these preliminary results, we find 

that Hindustan and Venus Wire are 

affiliated and for the purposes of this 

administrative review, should be treated 

as a single entity. 

The collapsed entity of Venus Wire, 

Precision Metals, Sieves, and Hindustan 

is hereafter referred to as ‘‘Venus.’’ 

Verification 

During December 2010, we verified 

the sales information provided by Venus 

in India using standard verification 

procedures, including examination of 

relevant sales and financial records, and 

selection of original documentation 

containing relevant information, as 

provided in section 782(i) of the Act. 

The Department reported its findings on 

January 20, 2011. See Memorandum to 

the File, ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

Response of Venus Wire Industries Pvt. 

Ltd. and Precision Metal in the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Stainless Steel Bar from 

India,’’ dated January 20, 2011; 

Memorandum to the File, ‘‘Verification 

of the Sales Response of Hindustan Inox 

Limited in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Bar from India,’’ dated January 20, 

2011; and Memorandum to the File, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of 

Sieves Manufacturers (India) Pvt., Ltd. 

in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Bar from India’’ dated January 20, 

2011. These reports are on file in the 

CRU. 

Intent Not To Revoke, In Part 

On February 22, 2010, Venus 

requested revocation of the Order as it 

pertains to its sales. On January 26, 

2011, the Department requested 

quantity and value information for the 

one year period prior to the imposition 

of the Order. On February 3, 2011, 

Venus responded that it did not keep 

shipment records beyond eight years 

and, therefore, could not meet the 

Department’s request. See February 3, 

2011, letter from Venus to the 

Department. 

On February 8, 2011, Petitioners 

commented that the Department should 

deny Venus’s revocation request 

because it did not ship in commercial 

quantities to the United States following 

the imposition of the Order. Petitioners 

also argued that the request for 

revocation of the Order should not be 

granted because Venus is subject to 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations in the European Union 

(‘‘EU’’) and, therefore, would be likely to 

engage in unfair trading practices in 

other markets including the United 

States. On February 18, 2011, Venus 

responded that it sold in commercial 

quantities to the United States in all 

administrative reviews it had 

participated in since the imposition of 

the Order. Venus further argued that the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

investigations in the EU should not be 

considered in determining the merit of 

a revocation request. 

Under section 751(d)(1) of the Act, the 

Department ‘‘may revoke, in whole or in 

part’’ an antidumping duty order upon 

completion of a review. Although 

Congress has not specified the 

procedures that the Department must 

follow in revoking an order, the 

Department has developed a procedure 

for revocation that is set forth at 19 CFR 

351.222. Under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i), 

the Department may revoke an 

antidumping duty order in part if it 

concludes that (A) an exporter or 

producer has sold the merchandise at 

not less than NV for a period of at least 

three consecutive years; (B) the exporter 

or producer has agreed in writing to its 

immediate reinstatement in the order if 

the Secretary concludes that the 

exporter or producer, subsequent to the 

revocation, sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV; and (C) 

the continued application of the 

antidumping duty order is no longer 

necessary to offset dumping. Section 

351.222(b)(3) of the Department’s 

regulations states that, in the case of an 

exporter that is not the producer of 

subject merchandise, the Department 

normally will revoke an order in part 

under 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2) only with 

respect to subject merchandise 

produced or supplied by those 

companies that supplied the exporter 

during the time period that formed the 

basis for revocation. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.222(e)(1) a request for revocation of 

an order in part for a company 

previously found dumping must address 

three elements. The company requesting 

the revocation must do so in writing and 

submit the following statements with 

the request: (1) The company’s 

certification that it sold the subject 

merchandise at not less than NV during 

the current review period and that, in 

the future, it will not sell at less than 

NV; (2) the company’s certification that, 

during each of the consecutive years 

forming the basis of the request, it sold 

the subject merchandise to the United 

States in commercial quantities; (3) the 

company’s agreement to reinstatement 

in the order if the Department concludes 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12047 

1Mukand submitted initial and supplemental 

Section D responses on June 11, 2010, August 31, 

October 26, and December 15, 2010, and February 

10, 2011. 

that, subsequent to revocation, the 

company has sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV. See 19 

CFR 351.222(e)(1). We preliminarily 

determine that the request dated 

February 22, 2010, from Venus meets all 

of the criteria under 19 CFR 

351.222(e)(1). 

However, with regard to the criteria of 

19 CFR 351.222(b)(2)(i), our preliminary 

margin calculations show that Venus 

sold SS Bar at less than NV during the 

current review period. See ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the Review’’ section below. 

As such, we preliminarily find that 

Venus does not qualify for revocation. 

Use of Facts Otherwise Available 

Section 776(a)(1) and (2) of the Act 

provides that the Department will apply 

‘‘facts otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not on the 

record or an interested party (A) 

withholds information requested by the 

Department; (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form or manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782 

of the Act; (C) significantly impedes a 

proceeding; or (D) provides information 

which cannot be verified as provided by 

section 782(i) of the Act. 

We have determined that the use of 

facts otherwise available is appropriate 

for the preliminary results with respect 

to Mukand because of Mukand’s: 1) 

Repeated failure throughout this review 

to provide product-specific cost data by 

size; 2) failure to provide any 

meaningful explanation of why such 

data could not be provided; and 3) 

failure to provide factual information to 

support its claim that cost differences 

due to size were insignificant. 

Normally, a respondent’s reported 

product costs should reflect cost 

differences attributable to the different 

physical characteristics, as defined by 

the Department, to ensure that the 

product-specific costs used for the salesbelow-cost test and constructed value 

(‘‘CV’’) accurately reflect the 

corresponding product’s physical 

characteristics. See sections 773(b)(1) 

and 773(e) of the Act. Similarly, the 

product-specific costs should 

incorporate differences in variable costs 

associated with the physical differences 

in the merchandise in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.411(b) to account for the 

difference-in-merchandise adjustment. 

For this administrative review, 

product size must be reflected in the 

cost-of-production (‘‘COP’’) and the CV 

because sales prices are compared to 

production costs on a size-specific basis. 

These comparisons cannot accurately be 

made without knowing how COP varies 

with size. In addition, section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act requires that 

we account for any differences 

attributable to physical differences 

between the subject merchandise and 

foreign like product if similar products 

are compared. 

Control numbers (‘‘CONNUMs’’) for 

SS Bar products, under this order and 

other orders on SS Bar, reflect six 

product characteristics (i.e., general type 

of finish, grade, re-melting, type of final 

finish, shape, and size). Mukand 

produces SS Bar in a wide range of 

sizes, but has failed to provide COP 

differences for the physical 

characteristic of size. 

Specifically, Mukand failed in its 

original and four supplemental 

responses 1 to provide unique product 

costs that account for the differences in 

the physical characteristic size, as 

defined by the Department. Mukand 

assigned the same per kilogram 

conversion costs to all products 

irrespective of the final size of the 

product produced. See cost database 

from Mukand’s Section D questionnaire 

response dated June 11, 2010. That 

methodology fails to provide the 

Department with product-specific COP 

and CV information. In addition, it fails 

to provide the Department with 

information necessary to calculate a 

difference in merchandise adjustment to 

account for differences in physical 

characteristics when comparing sales of 

similar merchandise. As explained to 

Mukand in the first Section D 

supplemental questionnaire, ‘‘without 

accurate data for size, we cannot 

perform a reliable sales-below-cost test; 

we cannot calculate accurate CVs for 

use as normal value; nor can we make 

accurate price-to-price comparisons of 

similar merchandise.’’ We issued 

Mukand four supplemental 

questionnaires requesting that it correct 

these errors, but it failed to do so. See 

supplemental questionnaires dated 

August 9, 2010, October 4, 2010, 

November 22, 2010, and January 21, 

2011 (‘‘Mukand’s SQDs’’). While we 

acknowledge that Mukand does not 

allocate cost to specific sizes in its 

normal books and records, we informed 

Mukand that it should use information 

reasonably available to the company to 

account for size-specific cost 

differences. We further instructed 

Mukand that if it believed that size did 

not contribute to cost differences 

between products, it should quantify 

and explain its reasons for not reporting 

a cost difference. In response, Mukand 

failed to provide costs differences for 

size, but did provide its reasoning as to 

why it considered the cost differences 

insignificant. However, Mukand’s 

explanation does not support the 

position that cost differences for 

different sizes are insignificant. In 

addition, we gave Mukand the 

opportunity to provide factual 

information to show the significance or 

insignificance of cost differences 

associated with the different sizes of SS 

Bar it produced. Mukand again failed to 

do so. Accordingly, Mukand’s failure to 

provide the requested data renders its 

response unusable for these preliminary 

results. Therefore, in light of Mukand’s 

continued failure to provide requested 

information necessary to calculate 

accurate dumping margins in this case, 

in accordance with section 776(a) of the 

Act, we determine that the use of facts 

otherwise available with an adverse 

inference is appropriate for these 

preliminary results. 

Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department finds that an 

interested party has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information, 

the Department may use an inference 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting the facts otherwise available. 

See Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Stainless Steel Bar from India, 

70 FR 54023, 54025–26 (September 13, 

2005), and Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 

55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002). In 

addition, the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. 103–316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. 

(1994) (‘‘SAA’’), explains that the 

Department may employ an adverse 

inference ‘‘to ensure that the party does 

not obtain a more favorable result by 

failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870; and, 

e.g., Certain Polyester Staple Fiber from 

Korea: Final Results of the 2005–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 69663 (December 10, 

2007). Furthermore, affirmative 

evidence of bad faith on the part of a 

respondent is not required before the 

Department may make an adverse 

inference. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Circular Seamless Stainless 

Steel Hollow Products From Japan, 65 

FR 42985 (July 12, 2000); Antidumping 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12048 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

Duties, Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997); and 

Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 

F.3d 1373, 1382–83 (CAFC 2003) 

(‘‘Nippon’’). It is the Department’s 

practice to consider, in employing 

adverse inferences, the extent to which 

a party may benefit from its own lack of 

cooperation. 

The Federal Circuit has stated that, 

‘‘while the adverse facts available 

standard does not require perfection and 

recognizes that mistakes sometimes 

occur, it does not condone 

inattentiveness, carelessness, or 

inadequate record keeping.’’ See 

Nippon, 337 F.3d at 1373, 1382–83. The 

AFA standard, moreover, assumes that 

because respondents are in control of 

their own information, they are required 

to take reasonable steps to present 

information that reflects their 

experience for reporting purposes before 

the Department. Therefore, we find it 

appropriate to use an inference that is 

adverse to the company’s interests in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. 

In this case, we have determined that 

Mukand has not acted to the best of its 

ability in responding to the 

Department’s request for size-specific 

cost information. In our supplemental 

questionnaires we repeatedly instructed 

Mukand to rely not only on its existing 

financial and cost accounting records, 

but on other information which would 

allow it to reasonably allocate its costs 

to the many different sizes of SS Bar 

products it produced. See Mukand’s 

SQDs. It is standard procedure for the 

Department to request product-specific 

cost data and we routinely receive such 

information from respondents, as we 

did from the other respondents, Venus 

and Facor, in this case. See section D 

questionnaire responses dated June 4, 

2010 for Facor, and dated June 14, 2010 

for Venus. Even if a company does not 

calculate product-specific costs to the 

level of detail required by the 

Department in its normal financial and 

cost accounting records as is the case 

here, we require that the company 

account for such cost differences using 

information reasonably available to it. 

See section D questionnaire dated June 

11, 2010 at D–25. 

Under section 782(c) of the Act, a 

respondent has a responsibility not only 

to notify the Department if it is unable 

to provide requested information, but 

also to provide a ‘‘full explanation and 

suggested alternative forms.’’ In 

response to our numerous requests for 

product-specific cost data, Mukand 

maintained its position that it would not 

provide the requested data because cost 

differences related to size are 

insignificant and the company’s 

accounting system does not track them. 

The Department repeatedly asked 

Mukand to support its claim that sizespecific cost differences for SS Bar 

products are not significant. However, 

to date, Mukand has failed to provide 

the Department with any actual data to 

support its claim. As such, this case can 

be distinguished from Polyethylene 

Terephthalate Film, Sheet and Strip 

From Taiwan: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 76 FR 9745 (February 22, 2011), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1, where the 

respondent provided an adequate 

explanation of why the cost differences 

for surface treatment was insignificant 

and provided actual data to support its 

claim. 

Cooperation in an antidumping 

investigation requires more than a 

simple statement that a respondent 

cannot provide certain information from 

its previously prepared accounting 

records. If a party cannot provide 

certain information from its accounting 

records, then it may notify the 

Department that it is unable to submit 

this information in the form and manner 

requested but it must also provide 

explanation and suggest alternative 

forms in which it is able to submit the 

information. See section 782(c) of the 

Act. See also Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value; Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products 

from Turkey, 65 FR 1127, 1132 (January 

7, 2000). To meet that burden, a 

respondent must explain what steps it 

has taken to comply with the 

information request, and propose 

alternative methodologies for getting the 

necessary information. See Allied-Signal 

Aerospace Co. v. United States, 996 

F.2d 1185, 1192 (Federal Circuit 1993). 

Mukand has failed to do either. 

Logically, at a minimum, in order to 

produce bars of different sizes, Mukand 

personnel would need to set the 

machine parameters to produce the 

specific size desired (i.e., set the 

machine speed and the number of 

passes through the rolling stand). It is 

reasonable to expect that Mukand has 

manufacturing plans or engineering 

standards associated with the 

production of specific sizes of bar that 

could have been used to reasonably 

allocate costs to specific sizes. As 

Mukand continues to produce SS Bar, 

Mukand personnel could have also 

timed current production runs to 

provide rolling times for specific sizes, 

which could have been used as a 

reasonable basis for allocating costs to 

specific sizes. It is also reasonable to 

expect that Mukand does know the 

grade-specific, length-to-weight 

conversion factors for different sizes of 

bar with the engineering knowledge the 

company possesses to manufacture SS 

Bar. While Mukand’s financial and costaccounting records may not allocate 

unique costs to the different sizes of bar 

produced, the company could have 

developed a reasonable methodology to 

allocate costs to different sized products 

on a CONNUM-specific per-unit weight 

basis, using the company’s normal costaccounting records as a starting point to 

calculate CONNUM-specific costs. The 

Department repeatedly requested that 

Mukand look beyond its financial and 

cost-accounting records and select from 

a variety of available data using, for 

example, engineering studies, rolling 

mill processing times, production 

experience, relative length-to-weight 

conversion factors, or other production 

records for allocating costs to products 

on a CONNUM-specific per-unit weight 

basis. See Mukand’s SQDs. 

Although we provided Mukand with 

notice informing it of the consequences 

of its failure to respond fully to our 

antidumping questionnaire, Mukand’s 

repeated failure throughout the review 

to provide size-specific cost data or to 

provide any meaningful explanation of 

why such data could not be provided, 

demonstrates that Mukand did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability. See 

Mukand’s SQDs. Mukand has 

participated in previous segments of 

this Order and, thus, has experience in 

responding to the Department’s requests 

for information and is well aware of the 

types of information the Department 

requires. See e.g., Stainless Steel Bar 

From India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 63 FR 13622 (March 20, 1998). 

Moreover, Mukand is a large, 

sophisticated company that has the 

resources to gather the information 

requested by the Department in this 

review. Therefore, we find that an 

adverse inference is warranted in 

selecting facts otherwise available. 

Where the Department applies an 

AFA rate because a respondent failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information, section 776(b) of the Act 

authorizes the Department to rely on 

information derived from the petition, a 

final determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. See 

also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 

870. Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information as facts available, 

it must, to the extent practicable, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12049 

2Selling functions associated with a particular 

chain of distribution help us to evaluate the level 

of trade(s) in a particular market. For purposes of 

these preliminary results, we have organized the 

common selling functions into four major 

categories: Sales process and marketing support, 

freight and delivery, inventory and warehousing, 

and quality assurance/warranty services. 

3Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

level of trade of the sales from which we derive 

selling expenses, general and administrative 

expenses (‘‘G&A’’) and profit for CV, where possible. 

corroborate that information from 

independent sources that are reasonably 

at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870; see 

also 19 CFR 351.308(d). The SAA also 

states that independent sources used to 

corroborate may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics, and customs data as well as 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular proceeding. 

Id. Information from a prior segment of 

the proceeding constitutes secondary 

information. Id. 

To corroborate secondary information, 

the Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information to be used. 

However, unlike other types of 

information, such as input costs or 

selling expenses, there are no 

independent sources for calculated 

dumping margins. Thus, in an 

administrative review, if the Department 

chooses as AFA a calculated dumping 

margin from a prior segment of the 

proceeding, it is not necessary to 

question the reliability of the margin. 

See Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished 

or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Final Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, and 

Determination Not To Revoke in Part, 69 

FR 55581 (September 15, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 18. 

As AFA for Mukand, we have 

assigned a margin of 22.63 percent. This 

margin was calculated for Ambica Steels 

Limited (‘‘Ambica’’) in the 2006 

antidumping duty new shipper review 

and represents the highest calculated 

weighted-average margin determined for 

any respondent in any segment of this 

proceeding. See Stainless Steel Bar from 

India: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty New Shipper Review, 72 FR 72671 

(December 21, 2007). This rate was 

reliable when it was first used because 

it was calculated as the AFA rate for 

Ambica, based upon its own submitted 

information. Id. No additional 

information has been presented in the 

current review which calls into question 

the reliability of the information. The 

Federal Circuit has held that the 

Department ‘‘is permitted to use a 

‘common sense inference that the 

highest prior margin is the most 

probative evidence of current margins 

because, if it were not so, the importer, 

knowing of the rule, would have 

produced current information showing 

the margin to be less.’’’ See KYD, Inc. v. 

United States, 607 F.3d 760 (Fed. Cir. 

2010) (quoting Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990)(emphasis deleted)). 

With respect to relevance aspect of 

corroboration, we have used the 

transaction-specific margins we 

calculated for Venus and Facor in this 

review to determine, in the absence of 

any response from Mukand regarding its 

cost by size, whether the rate of 22.63 

percent could bear a rational 

relationship to the commercial practices 

for sales of subject merchandise. 

Specifically, we analyzed transactionspecific margins of Venus and Facor to 

determine whether they made U.S. sales 

at prices that would result in 

transactional margins at or above 22.63 

percent during the POR. 

We found that the 22.63 percent 

margin falls within the range of 

individual transaction margins and that 

there was a significant number of sales 

in commercial quantities, made in the 

ordinary course of trade, by Facor and 

Venus, with margins near or exceeding 

22.63 percent. See Memorandum from 

Mahnaz Khan to File regarding 

Preliminary Results Calculation 

Memorandum for Facor Steels, Ltd., at 

Attachment 2 (February 28, 2011) and 

Memorandum from Austin Redington to 

File regarding Preliminary Results 

Calculation Memorandum for Venus 

Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd., at Attachment 

2 (February 28, 2011). 

The number of U.S. transactions 

receiving a margin of 22.63 percent or 

greater is a representative figure 

whether it is measured by the number, 

value or quantity of the transactions. 

Because we find that both of the other 

Indian respondents in this 

administrative review made a 

significant percentage of sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR at prices that resulted in 

transaction-specific margins at or above 

22.63 percent, we find that the rate of 

22.63 percent bears a rational 

relationship to the commercial practices 

of sales of subject merchandise. 

Selecting a rate representing a 

substantial percentage of total U.S. sales 

transactions by Venus and Facor is in 

line with PAM, S.p.A. v. United States, 

582 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2009), 

where the court upheld an AFA rate 

even though only 0.5% of the 

respondent’s total sales were above the 

selected rate. Moreover, there is no 

information on the record of this review 

that demonstrates that the rate selected 

is not an appropriate AFA rate for 

Mukand. 

Finally, we find that the rate of 22.63 

percent as AFA is sufficiently high to 

ensure that Mukand does not benefit 

from failing to cooperate in our review 

by refusing to respond to our 

questionnaire. See, e.g., Certain Cut-toLength Carbon-Quality Steel Plate 

Products From the Republic of Korea: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of Administrative Review in Part, 73 FR 

15132, 15133 (March 21, 2008). 

Date of Sale 

The Department normally will use the 

date of the invoice, as recorded in the 

producer’s or exporter’s records kept in 

the ordinary course of business, as the 

date of sale, but may use a date other 

than the invoice date if the Department 

is satisfied that a different date better 

reflects the date on which the material 

terms of sale are established. See 19 CFR 

351.401(i). 

Venus and Mukand reported that the 

material terms of their U.S. and 

comparison market sales are established 

by the invoice date; thus, we are relying 

on the invoice date as the sale for these 

companies. Facor reported that the 

material terms of its comparison market 

sales are established by the invoice date, 

however, for its U.S. sales, the quantity 

and price are not determined until 

issuance of the excise invoice. 

Accordingly, we are relying on invoice 

date as date of sale for Facor’s 

comparison market sales and excise date 

for its U.S. sales. 

Level of Trade 

In accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we determined 

NV using home market sales at the same 

level of trade as the U.S. sales. 

To determine whether home-market 

sales are at the same or different level 

of trade than U.S. sales, we examine 

stages in the marketing process and 

selling functions 2 along the chains of 

distribution between the producer and 

unaffiliated customers. Pursuant to 

section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in 

identifying levels of trade for export 

price (‘‘EP’’) and comparison market 

sales (i.e., NV based on either 

comparison market or third country 

prices),3 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. If the homemarket sales are at a different level of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12050 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

trade from that of a U.S. sale and the 

difference affect price comparability, as 

manifested in a pattern of consistent 

price differences between the sales on 

which NV is based and home-market 

sales at the level of trade of the export 

transaction, we make a level-of-trade 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. See, e.g., Stainless Steel Bar 

From Germany: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 69 FR 5493 (February 5, 2004) 

(unchanged at the final). 

(A) Venus 

Our level of trade determination for 

Venus relies on the sales activities of the 

collapsed entity of Venus Wire, 

Precision Metal, Sieves, and Hindustan. 

Venus reported one channel of 

distribution and a single level of trade 

in both the home market and the U.S. 

market. Venus reported that it sells to 

trading companies, distributors, and end 

users at this single level of trade in the 

home market, and to distributors, 

trading companies, and end users at the 

same level of trade in the U.S. market. 

Venus reported that its prices did not 

vary based on channel of distribution 

and/or customer category. See Venus 

Wire’s section AQR at A–16. 

We examined the information 

reported by Venus regarding its sales 

processes for its home market and U.S. 

market sales, including customer 

categories and the type and level of 

selling activities performed. See Venus 

Wire’s section AQR at A–13–16. 

Specifically, we considered the extent to 

which sales process/marketing support, 

freight/delivery, inventory maintenance, 

and quality assurance/warranty service 

varied with respect to the different 

customer categories and channels of 

distribution across the markets. 

Because there was only one channel 

of distribution and because we 

determined that the selling functions 

were similar for all home market sales, 

we found that the home market channel 

of distribution comprises one level of 

trade. We evaluated the U.S. channel of 

distribution and because the selling 

functions were identical for all U.S. 

sales, we found that it also comprises 

one level of trade. 

Next, we compared the U.S. level of 

trade to the home market level of trade. 

Venus reported similar levels of freight/ 

delivery in both the home market and 

U.S. market. Id. Further, Venus reported 

no inventory maintenance in either the 

home market or the U.S. market, and 

reported that it provided no warranty 

services in any of its channels of 

distribution. Id. 

Based on our examination of the 

selling functions performed in the single 

channel of distribution in the U.S. 

market, we preliminarily find that 

Venus’s sales in the home market and 

the United States were made at the same 

level of trade. Thus, we were able to 

match Venus’s EP sales to sales at the 

same level of trade in the home market. 

(B) Facor 

Facor reported that it had two levels 

of trade in the home market: (1) Sales to 

end-users from its factory warehouse in 

Nagpur and from its distribution 

warehouses located in Chennai and 

Kolkata (‘‘LOTH 1’’), and (2) sales to 

retailers from its factory warehouse in 

Nagpur (‘‘LOTH 2’’). See Facor’s section 

AQR dated May 24, 2010, at 17–19 and 

21. Facor reported one level of trade in 

the U.S. market comprised of sales to 

retailers from its factory warehouse in 

Nagpur. See Facor’s section AQR dated 

May 24, 2010, at 21. Facor requested a 

level of trade adjustment, claiming that 

its LOTH 1 ‘‘end-user’’ customers pay 

higher prices than its LOTH 2 ‘‘retail’’ 

customers. Id. 

In support of its claim, Facor reported 

that it performs more selling activities 

for LOTH 1 end-users than it does for 

LOTH 2 end-users, including but not 

limited to, product chemical guarantees, 

product performance guarantees, a 

higher level of negotiation of sales 

terms, and timely delivery guarantees. 

Id. Facor states that sales negotiations 

take longer for LOTH 1 end-users, as 

opposed to LOTH 2 retailers. See 

Facor’s section AQR dated May 24, 

2010, at 24. Regarding inventory 

maintenance, Facor claims that SS Bar 

is held in inventory for longer periods 

of time for LOTH 1 end-users than for 

LOTH 2 end-users. See Facor’s QR dated 

February 7, 2011 at 1. Facor reported 

that it uses third-party freight providers 

for its LOTH 1 sales for shipment from 

its Chennai and Kolkata warehouses. 

Further, for LOTH 1 sales, Facor 

generally advertises through its product 

brochures or displays. See Facor’s QR 

dated August 9, 2010, at 17. 

Facor reported that it does not 

necessarily perform additional sales 

functions for LOTH 2 relating to 

customers’ specifications. See Facor’s 

QR dated February 7, 2011, at 3. Facor 

states in its supplemental questionnaire 

response that sales negotiations for 

LOTH 2 retailers are less complicated 

than negotiations for LOTH 1 end-users 

because negotiations for LOTH 2 

retailers are restricted to a single level. 

See Facor’s QR dated February 7, 2011, 

at 3. Further, because LOTH 2 sales are 

not produced for specific customers, 

these sales have a shorter inventory 

carrying time. See Facor’s QR dated 

February 7, 2011 at 1. Facor reported 

that it uses third-party freight providers 

for LOTH 2 sales from its Nagpur 

warehouse. See Facor’s section AQR 

dated May 24, 2010, at 24. Similar to its 

LOTH 1 end-users, Facor generally 

advertises through its product brochures 

or displays for its LOTH 2 retailers. See 

Facor’s QR dated August 9, 2010, at 17. 

We examined the information 

regarding the types and levels of selling 

functions performed for LOTH 1 and 

LOTH 2. Specifically, we considered the 

extent to which sales process/marketing 

support, freight/delivery, inventory 

maintenance, and quality assurance/ 

warranty service varied with respect to 

LOTH 1 and LOTH 2. Although Facor 

reported that sales negotiations take 

longer for end-users, Facor did not 

quantify the number of staff, nor did it 

provide information regarding the 

allocation of marketing resources 

dedicated to supporting its LOTH 1 endusers. Moreover, Facor provides a 

similar level of advertising for both 

LOTH 1 and LOTH 2 in the home 

market. The only difference in inventory 

maintenance reported by Facor was that 

LOTH 1 sales remained in inventory for 

longer periods of time than for LOTH 2. 

Days in inventory is not a meaningful 

measure of inventory selling activities, 

and we found no other record 

information that indicates there were 

significantly different inventory 

activities performed between the factory 

and distribution warehouses. 

Specifically, there does not appear to be 

a significant difference in the intensity 

of resources or staffing. 

There also does not appear to be a 

significant difference in the level of 

intensity for freight/delivery between 

LOTH 1 and LOTH 2 because Facor 

reported that it contracts with thirdparty freight providers for delivery to its 

customers at both levels of trade. Our 

examination of the freight expenses 

reported by Facor indicates that the 

allocation of freight delivery expenses to 

customers at LOTH 1 and LOTH 2 are 

similar based on information reported in 

Facor’s home market sales data. Finally, 

Facor reported that certain product 

guarantees, such as guarantees relating 

to chemical and mechanical properties 

and technical performance, are not 

incurred on every sale because 

established customers generally waive 

request for such guarantees. See Facor 

QR dated February 7, 2011, at 4. 

Therefore, we do not find that product 

guarantees are a significant difference 

between LOTH 1 and LOTH 2. 

Accordingly, we preliminary 

determine that Facor did not experience 

significant differences in sales process/ 

marketing support, freight/delivery, 

inventory maintenance and quality 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12051 

assurance/warranty services between 

LOTH 1 and LOTH 2. Therefore, we 

preliminarily determine that a single 

level of trade exists in Facor’s home 

market. 

Facor reported EP sales to unaffiliated 

customers in the United States. See 

Facor’s June 3, 2010, section C response. 

Facor reported a single channel of 

distribution and customer type to the 

U.S. market, direct sales to retailers. The 

Department compared the selling 

functions Facor performed in the single, 

home market level of trade with the 

selling functions performed for its U.S. 

sales. The Department found that Facor 

advertised its products similarly in both 

markets. Moreover, the Department 

found that, for both markets, Facor 

contracted with third-party freight 

providers to handle all freight 

arrangements. There were no differences 

in quality assurances or warranties 

between the markets. Moreover, there 

were no significant differences in the 

level of intensity of inventory 

maintenance between the markets. 

Because the Department did not find 

any significant differences in sales 

process/customer support, quality 

assurances/warranty and inventory 

maintenance/warehousing between 

Facor’s home and U.S. market sales, we 

preliminarily find that Facor’s sales in 

the home market and the United States 

were made at the same level of trade. 

Thus, we matched Facor’s EP sales to 

sales at the same, single level of trade 

in the home market. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products sold 

by Venus and Facor that are covered by 

the description in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Order’’ section, above, and were sold in 

the home market during the POR to be 

foreign-like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. 

We relied upon six criteria to compare 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise to 

comparison market sales of the foreignlike product: (1) General type of finish; 

(2) grade; (3) remelting; (4) type of final 

finishing operation; (5) shape; and (6) 

size. This is consistent with our practice 

in the original investigation. See 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Stainless Steel 

Bar From India, 59 FR 39733, 39735 

(August 4, 1994) (unchanged at the 

final). Where there were no sales of 

identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to 

the next most similar product on the 

basis of the characteristics listed above. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

or similar merchandise made in the 

ordinary course of trade in the 

comparison market, we compared U.S. 

sales to CV. 

Export Price 

Venus and Facor reported that the 

subject merchandise was sold prior to 

importation by the exporter or producer 

outside the United States to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Therefore, we based the U.S. 

price on EP, as defined in Section 772(a) 

of the Act. 

(A) Venus 

Venus’s EP is based on the packed, 

delivered, duty paid price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We adjusted the reported gross 

unit prices, where applicable, for 

discounts including weight shortages, 

short payments, or quality claims. 

Where appropriate, we made deductions 

for movement expenses, including 

freight incurred in transporting 

merchandise to the Indian port, 

domestic brokerage and handling, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

U.S. brokerage and handling, freight 

incurred in the United States, and U.S. 

customs duties, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. See 

Memorandum from Austin Redington to 

File, re: ‘‘Venus Preliminary Results 

Calculation Memorandum,’’ dated 

February 28, 2011 (‘‘Venus Preliminary 

Sales Calculation Memo’’). 

(B) Facor 

Facor’s EP is based on the prepaid 

destination delivery, duty paid or cost, 

insurance and freight price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We made deductions for 

movement expenses from the reported 

gross unit price, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. These 

deductions included, where 

appropriate, freight incurred in 

transporting merchandise to the Indian 

port, domestic brokerage and handling, 

international freight, marine insurance, 

U.S. brokerage and handling, and U.S. 

customs duties. See Memorandum from 

Mahnaz Khan to File, re: ‘‘Facor 

Preliminary Results Calculation 

Memorandum,’’ dated February 28, 2011 

(‘‘Facor Preliminary Sales Calculation 

Memo’’). 

Duty Drawback 

Section 772(c)(1)(B) of the Act 

provides that EP shall be increased by, 

among other things, ‘‘the amount of any 

import duties imposed by the country of 

exportation which have been rebated, or 

which have not been collected, by 

reason of the exportation of the subject 

merchandise to the United States.’’ The 

Department determines that an 

adjustment to U.S. price for claimed 

duty drawback is appropriate when a 

company can demonstrate that: (1) The 

‘‘import duty and rebate are directly 

linked to, and dependent upon, one 

another;’’ and (2) ‘‘the company claiming 

the adjustment can show that there were 

sufficient imports of the imported raw 

materials to account for the drawback 

received on the exported product.’’ 

Rajinder Pipes Ltd. v. United States, 70 

F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1358 (Ct. Int’l Trade 

1999). Facor did not claim a duty 

drawback adjustment. Venus requested 

a duty drawback adjustment, but did not 

submit any information to support its 

request. Therefore, because Venus failed 

to meet the Department’s requirements, 

we are denying Venus’s request for a 

duty drawback adjustment for these 

preliminary results. See Venus 

Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo. 

Home Market 

Based on a comparison of the 

aggregate quantity of home-market and 

U.S. sales, and absent any information 

that a particular market situation in the 

exporting country did not permit a 

proper comparison, we determined that 

the quantity of foreign like product sold 

by both respondents in the exporting 

country was sufficient to permit a 

proper comparison with the sales of the 

subject merchandise pursuant to section 

773(a)(1) of the Act. Each company’s 

quantity of sales in its home market was 

greater than five percent of its sales to 

the U.S. market. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

of the Act, we based NV on the prices 

at which the foreign like product was 

first sold for consumption in the 

ordinary course of trade and, to the 

extent practicable, at the same level of 

trade as the EP sales. 

The Department may calculate NV 

based on a sale to an affiliated party 

only if it is satisfied that the price to the 

affiliated party is comparable to the 

price at which sales are made to parties 

not affiliated with the exporter or 

producer, i.e., sales were made at arm’s 

length prices. See 19 CFR 351.403(c). 

We excluded from our analysis sales to 

affiliated customers for consumption in 

the home market that we determined 

not to be at arm’s length prices. To test 

whether these sales were made at arm’s 

length prices, we compared them to the 

prices to unaffiliated customers, net of 

all rebates, movement charges, direct 

selling expenses, and packing. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.403(c) and in accordance 

with our practice, when the prices 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12052 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

charged to an affiliated party were, on 

average, between 98 and 102 percent of 

the prices charged to unaffiliated parties 

for merchandise comparable to that sold 

to the affiliated party, we determined 

that the sales to the affiliated party were 

at arm’s length prices. See Antidumping 

Proceedings: Affiliated Party Sales in 

the Ordinary Course of Trade, 67 FR 

69186 (November 15, 2002). We 

included in our calculation of NV those 

sales to affiliated parties that were made 

at arm’s length prices. See Venus 

Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo 

and Facor Preliminary Sales Calculation 

Memo. 

Constructed Value 

In accordance with section 773(e) of 

the Act, we calculated CV for Venus 

based on the sum of its material and 

fabrication costs, selling, general and 

administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, 

profit, and U.S. packing costs. We 

calculated the COP component of CV as 

described below in the ‘‘Cost of 

Production Analysis’’ section of this 

notice, below. In accordance with 

section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, we based 

SG&A expenses and profit on the 

amounts incurred and realized by Venus 

in connection with the production and 

sale of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade, for 

consumption in the foreign country. We 

did not calculate CV for Facor. 

Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Home Market Prices 

We calculated NV based on packed, 

ex-factory or delivered prices to 

unaffiliated customers in the home 

market. When applicable, we made 

adjustments for differences in packing 

and for movement expenses in 

accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) 

and 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. We also 

made adjustments for differences in cost 

attributable to differences in physical 

characteristics of the merchandise 

pursuant to section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of 

the Act, as well as for differences in 

circumstances of sale in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.410. When applicable, 

we also made adjustments, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e), for 

indirect selling expenses incurred on 

comparison market or U.S. sales where 

commissions were granted on sales in 

one market but not in the other. 

Specifically, where commissions were 

granted in the U.S. market but not in the 

comparison market, we made a 

downward adjustment to NV for the 

lesser of (1) the amount of the 

commission paid in the U.S. market, or 

(2) the amount of indirect selling 

expenses incurred in the comparison 

market. If commissions were granted in 

the comparison market but not in the 

U.S. market, we made an upward 

adjustment to NV following the same 

methodology. 

Cost Averaging Methodology 

The Department’s normal practice for 

respondents not in high inflationary 

economies is to calculate a single 

weighted-average cost for the entire POR 

unless this methodology results in 

inappropriate comparisons. See Certain 

Pasta From Italy: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 65 FR 77852 (December 13, 

2000), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 18, 

and Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel 

Wire Rod from Canada, 71 FR 3822 

(January 24, 2006), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 5 (explaining the 

Department’s practice of computing a 

single weighted-average cost for the 

entire period and the Department’s use 

of annual average costs in order to even 

out swings in production costs 

experienced by respondents over short 

periods of time). However, we recognize 

that possible distortions may result if 

we use our normal annual-average cost 

method during a period of significant 

cost changes. In determining whether to 

deviate from our normal methodology of 

calculating an annual weighted-average 

cost, we evaluate the case-specific 

record evidence using two primary 

factors: (1) The change in the cost of 

manufacturing (‘‘COM’’) recognized by 

the respondent during the POR must be 

deemed significant; (2) the record 

evidence must indicate that sales during 

the shorter averaging periods could be 

reasonably linked with the COP or CV 

during the same shorter averaging 

periods. See Stainless Steel Sheet and 

Strip in Coils From Mexico; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 6627 

(February 10, 2010), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 6, and Stainless Steel Plate in 

Coils From Belgium: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 75398 (December 11, 

2008) (‘‘SSPC from Belgium’’), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. 

In prior cases, we established 25 

percent as the threshold (between the 

high- and low-quarter COM) for 

determining that the changes in COM 

are significant enough to warrant a 

departure from our standard annual-cost 

approach. See SSPC from Belgium, and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. In the 

instant case, we analyzed the COM for 

selected highest sales volume SS Bar 

products. Based on our review of the 

record evidence, we did not find that 

Venus and Facor experienced 

significant changes in their respective 

COMs during the POR. Therefore, we 

followed our normal methodology of 

calculating an annual weighted-average 

cost. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of SS Bar 

by Venus and Facor to the United States 

were made at less than NV, we 

compared EP to NV, as described in the 

‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Home Market’’ 

sections of this notice, above. Pursuant 

to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we 

compared the EPs of individual U.S. 

transactions to the weighted-average NV 

of the foreign like product, where there 

were sales made in the ordinary course 

of trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Cost of 

Production Analysis’’ section, below. 

Cost of Production Analysis 

Because we disregarded sales by 

Venus and Facor made at prices below 

the COP in the most recently completed 

review of SS Bar from India (see 2008– 

2009 Final Results (Venus) and 

Stainless Steel Bar From India; Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review and Partial Rescission 

of Administrative Review, 65 FR 48965 

(August 10, 2000) (Facor)), we had 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 

that sales of the foreign like product 

under consideration for the 

determination of NV in this review for 

Venus and Facor may have been made 

at prices below the COP, as provided by 

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(1) of the Act, 

we initiated a COP investigation of sales 

by Venus and Facor. 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated COP based on 

the sum of the materials and conversion 

costs for the foreign like product, plus 

amounts for G&A expense and interest 

expenses. We relied on home market 

sales and COP information provided by 

Venus and Facor in their respective 

questionnaire responses, except where 

noted below: 

(A) Venus Wire, Sieves, Precision 

Metals, and Hindustan 

1. We increased Venus’s reported 

COM to include the unreconciled 

difference between the COM from its 

normal books and records and the 

reported COM. 

2. We revised Venus’s G&A expense 

rate to include the director 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12053 

remuneration expense in the numerator 

and we reduced the cost of goods sold 

(‘‘COGS’’) used as the denominator by 

the scrap revenue. 

3. We revised Venus’s financial 

expense rate by reducing the COGS 

denominator by the scrap revenue. 

4. For a specific Sieves CONNUM that 

was missing variable overhead (‘‘VOH’’) 

costs, we used the reported VOH from 

a surrogate CONNUM. 

5. We increased Sieves’s reported 

COM to account for inputs obtained 

from affiliates at less than market prices, 

and to include the unreconciled 

difference between the COM from its 

normal books and records and the 

reported COM. 

6. We revised Sieves’s G&A expense 

rate to include the director 

remuneration expense in the numerator 

and we reduced the COGS denominator 

by the scrap revenue. 

7. We revised Sieves’s financial 

expense rate by reducing the COGS 

denominator by the scrap revenue. 

8. We revised Precision Metals’s G&A 

expense rate by reducing the COGS 

denominator by the scrap revenue. 

9. We revised Precision Metals’s 

financial expense rate by reducing the 

COGS denominator by the scrap 

revenue. 

10. We increased Hindustan’s 

reported COM to include the 

unreconciled difference between the 

COM from its normal books and records 

and the reported COM. 

For additional details, see 

Memorandum to Neal M. Halper, 

Director of Office of Accounting, ‘‘Cost 

of Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated February 28, 

2011. 

Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of 

the Act, where less than 20 percent of 

sales of a given product were at prices 

less than the COP, we did not disregard 

any below-cost sales of that product 

because we determined that the belowcost sales were not made in ‘‘substantial 

quantities.’’ Where 20 percent or more of 

a respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP we 

disregarded the below-cost sales 

because: (1) They were made within an 

extended period of time in ‘‘substantial 

quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 

773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act; and (2) 

based on our comparison of prices to the 

indexed weighted-average COPs for the 

POR, they were at prices which would 

not permit the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 

the Act. 

Our cost tests for Venus and Facor 

revealed that, for home market sales of 

certain models, less than 20 percent of 

the sales of those models were made at 

prices below the COP. Therefore, we 

retained all such sales in our analysis 

and included them in determining NV. 

Our cost test for Venus and Facor 

further indicated that for home market 

sales of other models, more than 20 

percent were sold at prices below the 

COP within an extended period of time 

and were at prices which would not 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time. Thus, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the 

Act, we excluded these below-cost sales 

from our analysis and used the 

remaining above-cost sales to determine 

NV. See Venus Preliminary Sales 

Calculation Memo; see also Facor 

Preliminary Sales Calculation Memo. 

Currency Conversion 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415 and 

section 773A of the Act, we made 

currency conversions based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the date of 

the U.S. sale, as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. See Import 

Administration Web site at: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following weighted-average dumping 

margins exist for the respondents for the 

period February 1, 2009, through 

January 31, 2010. 

Exporter/manufacturer Margin 

(percent) 

Venus Industries Pvt. Ltd./Precision Metal/Sieves Manufacturing (India) Pvt. Ltd./Hindustan Inox Ltd ........................................ 1.32 

Mukand, Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 22.63 

Facor Steels Ltd./Ferro Alloys Corporation, Ltd .............................................................................................................................. 9.86 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose the 

calculations performed within five days 

of publication of this notice to the 

parties to this proceeding in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.310(c), any interested party 

may request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. If a hearing is requested, the 

Department will notify interested 

parties of the hearing schedule. Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in the case briefs. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), 

interested parties may submit case briefs 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, which 

must be limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, should be filed not later than 

5 days after the time limit for filing case 

briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

submitting arguments in this proceeding 

are requested to submit with each 

argument: (1) A statement of the issue, 

(2) a brief summary of the argument, 

and (3) a table of authorities, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). 

Further, parties submitting case and/or 

rebuttal briefs are requested to provide 

the Department with an additional 

electronic copy of the public version of 

any such comments on a computer 

diskette. Case and rebuttal briefs must 

be served on interested parties in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f). 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments or at a hearing, if requested, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, unless extended. 

See section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.213(h). 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

CBP will assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The 

Department intends to issue appropriate 

assessment instructions for the 

companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for 

all sales made by the respondents for 

which they have reported the importer 

of record and the entered value of the 

U.S. sales, we have calculated importerspecific assessment rates based on the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of those sales. 

Where the respondent did not report the 

entered value for U.S. sales to an 

importer, we have calculated importerspecific assessment rates for the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

1The Domestic Producers are the Ad Hoc Shrimp 

Trade Action Committee members: Nancy Edens; 

Papa Inc., Carolina Seafoods; Bosarge Boats, Inc.; 

Knights Seafood Inc.; Big Grapes, Inc.; Versaggi 

Shrimp Co.; and Craig Wallis. 

merchandise in question by aggregating 

the dumping margins calculated for all 

U.S. sales to each importer and dividing 

this amount by the total quantity of 

those sales. 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates were de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), the 

Department calculated importer-specific 

ad valorem ratios based on the entered 

value or the estimated entered value, 

when entered value was not reported. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate without 

regard to antidumping duties any 

entries for which the assessment rate is 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment 

Policy Notice’’). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by Venus and 

Facor for which these companies did 

not know that their merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the allothers rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediate involved in the 

transaction. For a full discussion of this 

clarification, see Assessment Policy 

Notice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

completion of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of SS Bar from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rate for the reviewed companies 

will be the rate established in the final 

results of this administrative review, 

except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent 

and is, therefore, de minimis, the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent final results in which that 

manufacturer or exporter participated; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, but was covered in a 

previous review or the original less than 

fair value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation, but 

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

most recent final results for the 

manufacturer of the merchandise; and 

(4) if neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 

any previous review conducted by the 

Department, the cash deposit rate will 

be 12.45 percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate 

established in the LTFV investigation. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 

Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 

(December 28, 1994). These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protection order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely 

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results of review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4981 Filed 3–3–11; 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: Preliminary Results, Partial 

Rescission, and Request for 

Revocation, In Part, of the Fifth 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

‘‘Department’’) is conducting the fifth 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’) 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’) for the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) February 1, 2009, through 

January 31, 2010. As discussed below, 

we preliminarily determine that sales 

have been made below normal value 

(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer-specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: Insert date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Pulongbarit, Paul Walker, or Jerry 

Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4031, (202) 482– 

0413, or (202) 482–4047, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 

5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘Order’’). On 

February 1, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the Order for 

the period February 1, 2009, through 

January 31, 2010. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 5037 (February 1, 2010). 

From February 26, 2010, through 

March 1, 2010, we received requests to 

conduct administrative reviews from the 

American Shrimp Processors 

Association (‘‘ASPA’’), the Louisiana 

Shrimp Association (‘‘LSA’’), the 

Domestic Producers,1 and certain 

Vietnamese companies. The Department 

also received three requests for 

revocation. See ‘‘Requests for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES