Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12033 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c), interested parties may 

submit case briefs not later than the 

later of 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice or one week 

after the issuance of the cost verification 

report for Apex. Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed not later than five days after the 

date for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are encouraged to submit 

with each argument: (1) A statement of 

the issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1870, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. Id. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of the issues 

raised in any written briefs, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). The Department will 

issue appropriate appraisement 

instructions for the companies subject to 

this review directly to CBP 15 days after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

For Apex and Falcon, we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

duty assessment rates based on the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of the sales. 

See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

For the companies which were not 

selected for individual review, we will 

calculate an assessment rate based on 

the average of the margins calculated for 

those companies selected for individual 

review, weighted by each company’s 

publicly-ranged quantity of reported 

U.S. transactions. In situations where 

we cannot apply our normal 

methodology of calculating a weightedaverage margin due to requests to 

protect business-proprietary information 

but where use of a simple average does 

not yield the best proxy of the weightedaverage margin relative to publicly 

available data, normally we will use the 

publicly available figures as a matter of 

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 

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

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 companies 

included in the final results of this 

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 all-others 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 10.17 

percent, the all-others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Shrimp Order, 70 FR at 5148. 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. 2011–4974 Filed 3–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–822] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Preliminary No Shipment 

Determination 

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 certain 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12034 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

1These subsidiaries are: Okeanos Co., Ltd., 

Okeanos Food Co., Ltd., Takzin Samut Co., Ltd., 

Chaophraya Cold Storage Co., Ltd., and Asia Pacific 

(Thailand) Company Ltd. 

2 In the Initiation Notice, the Department 

separately listed Bright Sea Co., Ltd. in the list of 

companies under review. However, in the original 

investigation, the Department found that The Union 

Frozen Products Co., Ltd. and Bright Sea Co., Ltd. 

comprised a single entity. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 69 FR 76918 

(Dec. 23, 2004). Therefore, we have treated Bright 

Sea Co., Ltd. and The Union Frozen Products, Co., 

Ltd. as a single entity for purposes of the 

preliminary results. 

3The domestic processors consist of the 

American Shrimp Processors Association and the 

Louisiana Shrimp Association. 

4The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee. 

5See generally Import Administration Policy 

Bulletin 05–2, which can be found at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05–2.pdf. 

frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from 

Thailand with respect to 152 

companies. The respondents which the 

Department selected for individual 

examination are Marine Gold Products 

Co., Ltd. (MRG) and Pakfood Public 

Company Limited and its affiliated 

subsidiaries (collectively, ‘‘Pakfood’’).1

The respondents which were not 

selected for individual examination are 

listed in the ‘‘Preliminary Results of 

Review’’ section of this notice. This is 

the fifth administrative review of this 

order. The period of review (POR) is 

February 1, 2009, through January 31, 

2010. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by MRG and Pakfood have been 

made at below normal value (NV) and, 

therefore, are subject to antidumping 

duties. In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual examination, we 

have preliminarily determined a margin 

for those companies that were not 

individually examined. 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Blaine Wiltse or Holly Phelps, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–6345 or (202) 482– 

0656, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand. See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 

1, 2005) (Shrimp Order). On February 1, 

2010, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand 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 

(Feb. 1, 2010). In response to timely 

requests from interested parties 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and 

(2) to conduct an administrative review 

of the U.S. sales of shrimp by numerous 

Thai producers/exporters, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of administrative review for 

153 companies. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, 

and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 75 FR 17693 (Apr. 7, 2010) 

(Initiation Notice).2

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department indicated that, in the event 

that we would limit the respondents 

selected for individual examination in 

accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), we would select mandatory 

respondents for individual examination 

based upon CBP entry data. See 

Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 17699. In 

April and May 2010, we received 

comments on the issue of respondent 

selection from MRG, Pakfood, the 

domestic processors,3 and the 

petitioner.4

In April and May 2010, we received 

statements from 14 companies that 

indicated that they had no shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. 

In July 2010, after considering the 

large number of potential exporters or 

producers involved in this 

administrative review, and the resources 

available to the Department, we 

determined that it was not practicable to 

examine all exporters/producers of 

subject merchandise for which a review 

was requested. See Memorandum to 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, from Elizabeth 

Eastwood, Senior Analyst, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, entitled, ‘‘2009–2010 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review,’’ 

dated July 9, 2010 (Respondent 

Selection Memo). As a result, pursuant 

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

determined that we could reasonably 

individually examine only the two 

producers/exporters accounting for the 

largest volume of certain frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Thailand 

during the POR (i.e., based on CBP entry 

data, Pakfood and MRG). Accordingly, 

we issued the antidumping duty 

questionnaire to these companies on 

July 9, 2010. 

On August 18, 2010, the domestic 

processors alleged that a particular 

market situation existed in Thailand 

during the POR that prevented home 

market prices of shrimp from being 

competitively set. Therefore, the 

domestic processors argued that the 

Department should not use home 

market sales as a basis for NV. In August 

and September 2010, we received 

rebuttal and surrebuttal comments 

regarding this issue from the 

respondents and the domestic 

processors. 

In August 2010, we received 

responses from MRG and Pakfood to 

section A (i.e., the section related to 

general information) of the Department’s 

questionnaire. Also in August 2010, we 

issued a supplemental section A 

questionnaire to Pakfood. In September 

2010, we received responses from MRG 

and Pakfood to sections B and C (i.e., 

the sections covering the comparison 

market and U.S. sales, respectively) of 

the Department’s questionnaire. In this 

same month, we also received Pakfood’s 

response to section D (i.e., the section 

covering cost of production (COP) and 

constructed value (CV)) of the 

Department’s questionnaire and its 

response to the Department’s 

supplemental section A questionnaire. 

On September 28, 2010, the petitioner 

requested that the Department 

automatically initiate a sales-belowcost-investigation of MRG. On October 

1, 2010, we issued a letter to the 

petitioner denying this request because 

the Department had not made a finding 

to disregard sales-below-cost for MRG in 

the most recently completed segment of 

the proceeding in which it participated 

as of the date of initiation of the current 

review.5 On October 6, 2010, the 

petitioner filed a company-specific 

sales-below-cost allegation for MRG. 

On October 7, 2010, the Department 

extended the preliminary results in the 

current review to no later than February 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12035 

6 In this notice, we incorrectly stated that the 

Department would issue the preliminary results no 

later than March 1, 2011. See 2009–2010 Prelminary 

Extension, 75 FR at 62100. 

7 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

8This company was listed in the Initiation Notice 

as American Commercial Transport (Thailand). 

9This company was listed in the Initiation Notice 

as Leo Transports. 

28, 2011. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From India and 

Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limits for the Preliminary Results of the 

2009–2010 Administrative Reviews, 75 

FR 62099, 62100 (Oct. 7, 2010) (2009– 

2010 Preliminary Extension).6 Also in 

October 2010, we issued supplemental 

sales questionnaires to each respondent, 

and we received responses to these 

questionnaires. 

On October 21, 2010, the Department 

initiated a sales-below-cost investigation 

for MRG, and on that date we instructed 

MRG to respond to section D of the 

Department’s questionnaire. See 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from the Team, entitled, ‘‘February 

2009–January 2010 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand: The Petitioner’s Allegation of 

Sales-Below-Cost of Production for 

Marine Gold Products Ltd.,’’ dated 

October 21, 2010 (MRG Cost 

Investigation Memo). 

On October 29, 2010, the Department 

found that there was insufficient 

evidence to determine that a particular 

market situation, within the meaning of 

section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, 

existed in Thailand during the POR that 

would prevent a proper comparison 

between respondents’ export prices and 

their home market prices. See 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from Blaine Wiltse, Trade Analyst, 

Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, 

‘‘2009–2010 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand: Allegation of a Particular 

Market Situation,’’ dated October 29, 

2010. 

In November and December 2010, we 

issued supplemental sales and cost 

questionnaires to both respondents, and 

we received responses to these 

supplemental questionnaires in these 

months. 

In January and February 2011, we 

verified the sales and cost data reported 

by Pakfood. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,7

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Thai white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell-on or peeled 

(HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled 

shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of 

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; (3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

flour; (4) with the non-shrimp content of 

the end product constituting between 

four and ten percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Preliminary No Shipment 

Determination 

In April and May 2010, 14 companies 

notified the Department that they had 

no shipments of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR; only 

12 of these claims, however, were 

properly filed and/or contained 

information sufficient to determine 

whether shipments were, in fact, made. 

The Department subsequently 

confirmed with CBP the no-shipment 

claim made by these 12 companies. 

Because the evidence on the record 

indicates that these companies did not 

export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following 12 companies had no 

reviewable transactions during the POR: 

(1) American Commercial Transport, 

Inc.8

(2) Ampai Frozen Food Co., Ltd. 

(3) Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd. 

(4) Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. 

(5) Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd. 

(6) Leo Transport Corporation Ltd.9

(7) Mahachai Food Processing Co., 

Ltd. 

(8) S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public 

Co., Ltd. 

(9) Siam Marine Frozen Foods Co., 

Ltd. 

(10) Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. 

Ltd. 

(11) Thai Union Manufacturing Co., 

Ltd. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12036 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

10This company was listed in the Initiation 

Notice as V Thai Food Product. 

(12) V. Thai Food Product Co., Ltd.10

Since the implementation of the 1997 

regulations, our practice concerning noshipment respondents has been to 

rescind the administrative review if the 

respondent certifies that it had no 

shipments and we have confirmed 

through our examination of CBP data 

that there were no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 

1997). As a result, in such 

circumstances, we normally instruct 

CBP to liquidate any entries from the 

no-shipment company at the deposit 

rate in effect on the date of entry. 

In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ clarification, we explained 

that, where respondents in an 

administrative review demonstrate that 

they had no knowledge of sales through 

resellers to the United States, we would 

instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 

the all-others rate applicable to the 

proceeding. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). 

Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation 

instructions do not alleviate the 

concerns which the May 2003 

clarification was intended to address, 

we find it appropriate in this case to 

instruct CBP to liquidate any existing 

entries of merchandise produced by the 

12 companies listed above and exported 

by other parties at the all-others rate, 

should we continue to find that these 

companies had no shipments of subject 

merchandise in the POR in our final 

results. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal 

From the Russian Federation: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in 

Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 56989 (Sept. 17, 2010); 

and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 

Coils From Taiwan: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 76700, 76701 (Dec. 9, 

2010). 

In addition, the Department finds that 

it is more consistent with the May 2003 

clarification not to rescind the review in 

part in these circumstances but, rather, 

to complete the review with respect to 

these 12 companies and issue 

appropriate instructions to CBP based 

on the final results of the review. See 

the ‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this 

notice, below. 

With respect to the remaining two 

companies which submitted deficient 

statements of no shipments during the 

POR, A. Wattanachai Frozen Products 

Co., Ltd. (Wattanachai) did not properly 

certify its statement of no shipments in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1), 

while Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., 

Ltd.’s (Calsonic) statement of no 

shipments contained inadequate 

information. The Department contacted 

each of these companies on multiple 

occasions requesting that they correct 

the deficiencies in their statements of no 

shipments; however, neither company 

responded to our requests. Therefore, 

we preliminarily find that there is 

insufficient evidence on the record of 

this review to conclude that these 

companies made no shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. Therefore, we are 

continuing to include both companies 

in this administrative review. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of shrimp 

from Thailand to the United States were 

made at less than NV, we compared the 

export price (EP) or constructed export 

price (CEP) to the NV, as described in 

the ‘‘Constructed Export Price/Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for MRG and 

Pakfood, we compared the EPs or CEPs 

of individual U.S. transactions, as 

applicable, to the weighted-average NV 

of the foreign like product in the 

appropriate corresponding calendar 

month where there were sales made in 

the ordinary course of trade, as 

discussed in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16)(A) 

of the Act, we considered all products 

produced by MRG and Pakfood covered 

by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Order’’ section, above, to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales of 

shrimp to sales of shrimp made in the 

home market within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

to the month of the first U.S. sale until 

two months after the month of the last 

U.S. sale. 

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, according to 

section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we 

compared U.S. sales of non-broken 

shrimp to sales of the non-broken most 

similar foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making the 

product comparisons, we matched 

foreign like products based on the 

physical characteristics reported by 

MRG and Pakfood in the following 

order: cooked form, head status, count 

size, organic certification, shell status, 

vein status, tail status, other shrimp 

preparation, frozen form, flavoring, 

container weight, presentation, species, 

and preservative. Where there were no 

sales of identical or similar non-broken 

merchandise, we made product 

comparisons using CV, as discussed in 

the ‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value’’ section below. 

See section 773(a)(4) of the Act. 

With respect to sales comparisons 

involving broken shrimp, we compared 

Pakfood’s sales of broken shrimp in the 

United States to sales of comparable 

quality shrimp in the home market. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

broken shrimp in the home market 

made in the ordinary course of trade to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales of broken shrimp to sales of 

the most similar broken shrimp made in 

the ordinary course of trade. Where 

there were no sales of identical or 

similar broken shrimp, we made 

product comparisons using CV. MRG 

did not make sales of broken shrimp to 

the United States during the POR. 

Because we disallowed Pakfood’s 

differentiation of trays under the 

‘‘presentation’’ product characteristic in 

the final results of the 2008–2009 

administrative review, we revised 

Pakfood’s relevant presentation codes 

and product control numbers in our 

margin calculations, including the 

calculation of the COP, to reflect this 

change. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand: Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

54847 (Sept. 9, 2010), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 12. 

Constructed Export Price/Export Price 

For certain U.S. sales made by MRG 

and Pakfood, we calculated CEP in 

accordance with section 772(b) of the 

Act because the subject merchandise 

was first sold to unaffiliated purchasers 

after its importation into the United 

States. 

For the remaining U.S. sales made by 

MRG and Pakfood, we used EP 

methodology, in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act, because the 

subject merchandise was sold by the 

producer/exporter outside of the United 

States directly to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States prior to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12037 

importation and CEP methodology was 

not otherwise warranted based on the 

facts of record. 

MRG reported that, during the POR, it 

sold subject merchandise to the United 

States that it purchased from an 

unaffiliated producer. In such cases, the 

Department normally would base NV for 

those sales on MRG’s sales in the 

comparison market of foreign like 

product produced by the same 

unaffiliated producer, in accordance 

with sections 771(16) and 773(a)(1)(B)(I) 

of the Act. In this case, however, MRG 

made no such sales in the home market. 

While the Department could have 

requested that the unaffiliated producer 

provide cost data for the U.S. sales, and 

based NV on the CV of the merchandise, 

we find that the percentage of MRG’s 

U.S. sales accounted for by this 

merchandise is not significant. 

Therefore, we have not requested such 

information and, instead, as facts 

otherwise available, pursuant to section 

776(a)(1) of the Act, we have used 

MRG’s costs to produce merchandise 

with characteristics identical or similar 

to the characteristics of the merchandise 

produced by the unaffiliated producer 

as the basis for CV. See Stainless Steel 

Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: 

Preliminary Results and Preliminary 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 45393, 

45398 (Aug. 5, 2008), unchanged in 

Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils 

From Taiwan: Final Results and 

Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 74704 

(Dec. 9, 2008). For further discussion, 

see the Memorandum to the File, from 

Blaine Wiltse, Analyst, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, entitled, ‘‘Calculation 

Adjustments for Marine Gold Products 

Limited, for the Preliminary Results in 

the 2009–2010 Administrative Review 

of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Thailand,’’ dated February 28, 2011 

(MRG Prelim Calc Memo). 

We also revised the date of sale for 

certain of MRG’s U.S. sales to report the 

date of the last invoice issued, which set 

the final material terms of sale, as the 

date of sale. For further discussion, see 

the MRG Prelim Calc Memo. 

We revised the data reported by 

Pakfood to take into account minor 

corrections found at verification. See 

Memorandum to the File, from Holly 

Phelps, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD 

Operations, entitled, ‘‘Calculation 

Adjustments for Pakfood Public 

Company Limited and its affiliated 

subsidiaries, Okeanos Co., Ltd., Okeanos 

Food Co., Ltd., Takzin Samut Co., Ltd., 

Chaophraya Coldstorage Co., Ltd., and 

Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Ltd. 

(collectively, ‘‘Pakfood’’), for the 

Preliminary Results in the 2009–2010 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand,’’ dated February 28, 2011 

(Pakfood Prelim Calc Memo). 

A. MRG 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments to the starting price for 

billing adjustments and rebates in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 

also made deductions from the starting 

price for foreign inland freight expenses, 

foreign warehousing expenses, foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses, 

international freight expenses, marine 

insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and 

handling expenses, U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees), U.S. 

inland freight expenses, and U.S. 

warehousing expenses, where 

appropriate, in accordance with section 

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

We based CEP on C&F (cost and 

freight) or DDP (delivered, duty paid) 

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. We made deductions for 

movement expenses, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

warehousing expenses, foreign inland 

freight expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, international freight 

expenses, marine insurance expenses, 

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 

and U.S. customs duties (including 

harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees). In 

accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (e.g., 

bank fees and imputed credit expenses) 

and indirect selling expenses (including 

inventory carrying costs). 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by MRG on its sales of the subject 

merchandise in the United States and 

the profit associated with those sales. 

B. Pakfood 

We based EP on C&F and DDP packed 

prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser 

in the United States. Where appropriate, 

we made deductions from the starting 

price for discounts in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made 

deductions from the starting price for 

foreign warehousing expenses, foreign 

inland freight expenses, foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses, ocean 

freight expenses, marine insurance 

expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, FDA inspection expenses, and 

U.S. customs duties (including harbor 

maintenance fees and merchandise 

processing fees), where appropriate, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. We recalculated foreign 

warehousing expenses to remove the 

amount of certain ‘‘short’’ payments 

received by Pakfood on its CEP sales. 

For further discussion, see the Pakfood 

Prelim Calc Memo. 

We based CEP on DDP prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. We made deductions for billing 

adjustments, where appropriate, based 

on the value of ‘‘short’’ payments not 

collected by Pakfood during the POR, 

which Pakfood reported as part of 

warehousing expenses. For further 

discussion, see the Pakfood Prelim Calc 

Memo. 

We also made deductions for 

movement expenses, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these 

included, where appropriate, foreign 

warehousing expenses, foreign inland 

freight expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, ocean freight 

expenses, marine insurance expenses, 

U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, 

FDA inspection expenses, and U.S. 

customs duties (including harbor 

maintenance fees and merchandise 

processing fees). We recalculated 

foreign warehousing expenses in the 

same manner noted above. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted direct selling expenses (i.e., 

imputed credit expenses), and indirect 

selling expenses (including inventory 

carrying costs). Pursuant to section 

772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced 

the starting price by an amount for 

profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 

with section 772(f) of the Act, we 

calculated the CEP profit rate using the 

expenses incurred by Pakfood on its 

sales of the subject merchandise in the 

United States and the profit associated 

with those sales. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 

See section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. 

Based on this comparison, we 

determined that MRG and Pakfood had 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12038 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

11Where NV is based on CV, we determine the 

NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which 

we derive selling expenses, general and 

administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, 

where possible. 

viable home markets during the POR. 

Consequently, we based NV on home 

market sales for MRG and Pakfood. 

B. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as 

the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 

different LOTs if they are made at 

different marketing stages (or their 

equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id; see also Certain Orange 

Juice From Brazil: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent Not To 

Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in 

Part, 75 FR 50999, 51001 (Aug. 18, 

2010), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 

(OJ from Brazil). In order to determine 

whether the comparison market sales 

were at different stages in the marketing 

process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed 

the distribution system in each market 

(i.e., the chain of distribution), 

including selling functions, class of 

customer (customer category), and the 

level of selling expenses for each type 

of sale. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 

on either home market or third country 

prices),11 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 

we consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Act. See Micron Tech., Inc. 

v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314– 

16 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it possible, we make an LOT 

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

the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if 

the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage 

of distribution than the LOT of the CEP 

and there is no basis for determining 

whether the difference in LOTs between 

NV and CEP affects price comparability 

(i.e., no LOT adjustment was possible), 

the Department shall grant a CEP offset, 

as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act. See, e.g., OJ from Brazil, 75 FR 

at 51001. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from both 

respondents regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

home market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed by each respondent for each 

channel of distribution. Companyspecific LOT findings are summarized 

below. 

1. MRG 

MRG reported that it made sales 

through one channel of distribution in 

the United States (i.e., EP sales made 

directly to unaffiliated customers). 

However, during the POR, certain of 

MRG’s EP sales were cancelled and then 

resold after importation into the United 

States on a CEP basis. These CEP sales 

represent a second channel of 

distribution for MRG’s U.S. sales during 

the POR. 

MRG reported performing the 

following selling functions for its EP 

U.S. sales: Sales forecasting/market 

research; sales promotion/trade shows 

and advertising; direct sales personnel; 

paying commissions; order processing/ 

sales documentation; packing/ 

packaging; inventory maintenance; 

freight/delivery arrangements; providing 

cash discounts; providing financing; 

and warranty service. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

four selling function categories for 

analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) 

freight and delivery; (3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and, (4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, based on the selling 

function categories, we find that MRG 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

warranty and technical support for all 

EP U.S. sales. MRG reported performing 

the same selling functions for its CEP 

U.S. sales as its EP U.S. sales. Therefore, 

because MRG did not perform any 

different selling functions to make its 

CEP U.S. sales, we find that such sales 

do not constitute a different LOT in the 

U.S. market. Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, 

MRG reported that it made sales through 

two channels of distribution (i.e., sales 

to one customer which purchases 

shrimp for processing into non-subject 

merchandise; and sales to all other 

customers). We examined the selling 

activities performed for these channels, 

and found that MRG performed the 

following selling functions for both 

channels: Order processing/sales 

documentation, inventory maintenance, 

limited freight/delivery services, 

financing services, warranty services, 

and packing/packaging. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

four selling function categories for 

analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) 

freight and delivery services; (3) 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and (4) warranty and 

technical support. Accordingly, we find 

that MRG performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery services, 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing, and warranty and 

technical support for all customers in 

the home market. In addition, MRG 

reported that it performed sales 

forecasting/market research and 

employed direct sales personnel at a 

low-to-medium level of intensity for one 

home market channel, and did not 

perform these activities for the other 

home market channel. However, after 

analyzing the selling functions 

performed for both sales channels in the 

home market, we find that the 

distinctions in selling functions are not 

significant. Therefore, based on the 

totality of the facts and circumstances, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the home market for MRG. 

Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

and home market customers are 

essentially the same, with the exception 

of commission payments made for 

certain U.S. sales. We note that this 

difference is not a sufficient basis to 

determine that the U.S. LOT is different 

from the home market LOT. Moreover, 

although there are some differences in 

the level of intensity at which some of 

the selling functions were performed in 

the two markets, we find that these 

differences are not significant. 

Therefore, based on the totality of the 

facts and circumstances, we 

preliminarily determine that sales to the 

U.S. and home markets during the POR 

were made at the same LOT, and as a 

result, no LOT adjustment or CEP offset 

is warranted. 

2. Pakfood 

Pakfood reported that it made EP and 

CEP sales through a single channel of 

distribution (i.e., direct sales to 

distributors), and performed the 

following selling functions for sales to 

U.S. customers: Sales forecasting, 

market research, sales promotion, 

advertising, order processing, 

procurement/sourcing services, direct 

sales personnel, provision of cash 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12039 

discounts, payment of commissions, 

freight and delivery services, 

warehousing services, and packing. 

These selling activities can be generally 

grouped into four selling function 

categories for analysis: (1) Sales and 

marketing; (2) freight and delivery 

services; (3) inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and (4) warranty and 

technical support. Accordingly, based 

on the selling function categories, we 

find that Pakfood performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery services, 

and inventory maintenance and 

warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all 

sales in the United States are made 

through a single distribution channel 

(i.e., direct sales to unaffiliated 

customers) and the selling activities to 

Pakfood’s customers did not vary within 

this channel, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, 

Pakfood reported that it made sales to 

processors, distributors, retailers, and 

end-users. Pakfood stated that its home 

market sales were made through a single 

channel of distribution, direct from 

factory to customer, and that it 

performed the following selling 

functions for sales to home market 

customers: Sales forecasting, market 

research, sales promotion, advertising, 

procurement/sourcing services, order 

processing, direct sales personnel, 

provision of cash discounts, freight and 

delivery services, warehousing, and 

packing. These selling activities can be 

generally grouped into four selling 

function categories for analysis: (1) 

Sales and marketing; (2) freight and 

delivery services; (3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and (4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, we find that Pakfood 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing at the 

same relative level of intensity for all 

customers in the home market. Because 

all sales in the home market sales are 

made through a single distribution 

channel and the selling activities to 

Pakfood’s customers did not vary within 

this channel, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

home market for Pakfood. 

Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

and home market customers are 

virtually identical, with the exception of 

commission payments made for certain 

U.S. sales. We note that this difference 

is not a sufficient basis to determine that 

the U.S. LOT is different from the home 

market LOT. Moreover, although there 

are some differences in the level of 

intensity at which some of the selling 

functions were performed in the two 

markets, we find that these differences 

are not significant. Therefore, based on 

the totality of the facts and 

circumstances, we preliminarily 

determine that sales to the U.S. and 

home markets during the POR were 

made at the same LOT, and as a result, 

no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is 

warranted. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

Based on our analysis of the 

petitioner’s allegation, we found that 

there were reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that MRG’s sales of 

shrimp in the home market were made 

at prices below its COP. Accordingly, 

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we 

initiated a sales-below-cost investigation 

to determine whether MRG’s sales were 

made at prices below its COP. See MRG 

Cost Investigation Memo. 

Moreover, we found that Pakfood 

made sales in the same comparison 

market below the COP in the most 

recently completed segment of this 

proceeding as of the date of initiation of 

this review and such sales were 

disregarded. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 47551, 47552 (Sept. 16, 

2009). Thus, in accordance with section 

773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we find that 

there are reasonable grounds to believe 

or suspect that Pakfood made sales in 

the home market at prices below the 

cost of producing the merchandise in 

the current POR. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the 

respondents’ COPs based on the sum of 

their costs of materials and conversion 

for the foreign like product, plus 

amounts for G&A expenses and interest 

expenses (see ‘‘Test of Comparison 

Market Sales Prices’’ section, below, for 

treatment of third country selling 

expenses). 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by each respondent in its 

most recently submitted cost database 

for the COP calculation, for the 

following instance. 

We have revised Pakfood’s G&A 

expenses to eliminate certain double 

counting of direct selling expenses. For 

further discussion of these adjustments, 

see the memorandum from Ernest 

Gziryan, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Pakfood Public 

Company Limited,’’ dated February 28, 

2011. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product-specific basis, pursuant 

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

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

prices of the foreign like product, in 

order to determine whether the sale 

prices were below the COP. For 

purposes of this comparison, we used 

COP exclusive of selling and packing 

expenses. The prices (inclusive of 

billing adjustments, where appropriate) 

were exclusive of any applicable 

movement charges, discounts, direct 

and indirect selling expenses and 

packing expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the 

Act whether: (1) Within an extended 

period of time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities; and (2) such sales 

were made at prices which permitted 

the recovery of all costs within a 

reasonable period of time in the normal 

course of trade. In accordance with 

sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, 

where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s home market sales of a 

given product are at prices less than the 

COP, we do not disregard any belowcost sales of that product because we 

determine that in such instances the 

below-cost sales were not made within 

an extended period of time and in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of a respondent’s sales 

of a given product are at prices less than 

the COP, we disregard the below-cost 

sales when: (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 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. 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of MRG’s and 

Pakfood’s home market sales were at 

prices less than the COP and, in 

addition, such sales did not provide for 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We therefore excluded 

these sales and used the remaining sales 

as the basis for determining NV, in 

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

Act. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12040 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

For those U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise for which there were no 

home market sales in the ordinary 

course of trade, we compared CEPs or 

EPs, as appropriate, to CV in accordance 

with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Constructed Value’’ section below. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

1. MRG 

For MRG, we calculated NV based on 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the home market. We 

made adjustments to the starting price, 

where appropriate, for billing 

adjustments, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c). We also made deductions for 

foreign inland freight expenses and 

foreign warehousing expenses, under 

section 773(a)(6)(B) of the Act. 

For comparisons to EP sales, we made 

adjustments under section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410 for differences in circumstances 

of sale for direct selling expenses 

(including bank fees and imputed credit 

expenses) and commissions, where 

appropriate. Because commissions were 

paid only on sales in the U.S. market, 

we also made a downward adjustment 

to NV for the lesser of: (1) The amount 

of commissions paid in the U.S. market; 

or (2) the amount of indirect selling 

expenses incurred in the home market. 

See 19 CFR 351.410(e). We recalculated 

MRG’s foreign indirect selling expense 

ratio to remove sales of scrap from the 

denominator of the calculation. See 

MRG Prelim Calc Memo. 

For comparisons to CEP sales, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we 

deducted from NV direct selling 

expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses 

and bank fees) and commissions. 

Because commissions were paid only in 

the U.S. market, we made a downward 

adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) 

The amount of commission paid in the 

U.S. market; or (2) the amount of 

indirect selling expenses (including 

inventory carrying costs) incurred in the 

home market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). As 

noted above, we recalculated MRG’s 

foreign indirect selling expense ratio. 

Finally, for all price-to-price 

comparisons, we made adjustments for 

differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs, in 

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

and (B)(i) of the Act. 

2. Pakfood 

We based NV for Pakfood on exfactory or delivered prices to 

unaffiliated customers in the home 

market, or prices to affiliated customers 

in the home market that were 

determined to be at arm’s length. Where 

appropriate, we made adjustments to 

the starting price for billing 

adjustments. We also made deductions, 

where appropriate, from the starting 

price for inland freight and warehousing 

expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act. 

For comparisons to EP sales, we made 

adjustments under section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410 for differences in circumstances 

of sale for direct selling expenses 

(including imputed credit expenses, 

bank fees, and express mail charges) and 

commissions, where appropriate. 

Because commissions were paid only in 

the U.S. market, we made a downward 

adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) 

The amount of commission paid in the 

U.S. market; or (2) the amount of 

indirect selling expenses (including 

inventory carrying costs) incurred in the 

home market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). 

For comparisons to CEP sales, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we 

deducted from NV direct selling 

expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses, 

bank fees, and express mail charges). 

Finally, for all price-to-price 

comparisons, we made adjustments for 

differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also 

deducted home market packing costs 

and added U.S. packing costs, in 

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

and (B)(i) of the Act. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, for MRG’s 

shrimp products for which we could not 

determine the NV based on home 

market sales because, as noted in the 

‘‘Results of the COP Test’’ section above, 

all sales of the comparable products 

failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. 

Sections 773(e)(1) and (2)(A) of the 

Act provides that CV shall be based on 

the sum of the cost of materials and 

fabrication for the imported 

merchandise, plus amounts for selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. 

For MRG, we calculated the cost of 

materials and fabrication based on the 

methodology described in the ‘‘Cost of 

Production Analysis’’ section, above. We 

based SG&A and profit for MRG on the 

actual amounts incurred and realized by 

it in connection with the production 

and sale of the foreign like product in 

the ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the home market, in 

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of 

the Act. 

For MRG, we made adjustments to CV 

for differences in circumstances of sale, 

in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and (a)(8) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, 

we made circumstance-of-sale 

adjustments by deducting direct selling 

expenses incurred on MRG’s 

comparison market sales from, and 

adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, 

CV. See 19 CFR 351.410(c). For 

comparisons to CEP, we deducted 

MRG’s comparison market direct selling 

expenses from CV. Id. We also made 

adjustments, when applicable, for 

MRG’s home market indirect selling 

expenses to offset U.S. commissions in 

EP comparisons. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars for all spot transactions by 

MRG and Pakfood, in accordance with 

section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.415, based on the exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. In 

addition, both MRG and Pakfood 

reported that they purchased forward 

exchange contracts which were used to 

convert their sales prices into home 

market currency. Under 19 CFR 

351.415(b), if a currency transaction on 

forward markets is directly linked to an 

export sale under consideration, the 

Department is directed to use the 

exchange rate specified with respect to 

such currency in the forward sale 

agreement to convert the foreign 

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

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (Dec. 23, 2004), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6; see also 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

India: Preliminary Results and 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 12103, 12113 (Mar. 6, 

2008), unchanged in Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp form India: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 40492 (July 15, 2008). 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12041 

12This rate is based on the average of the margins 

calculated for those companies selected for 

individual review, weighted by each company’s 

publicly-ranged quantity of reported U.S. 

transactions. Because we cannot apply our normal 

methodology of calculating a weighted-average 

margin due to requests to protect businessproprietary information, we find this rate to be the 

best proxy of the actual weighted-average margin 

determined for the mandatory respondents. See Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances 

Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 

53661, 53663 (Sept. 1, 2010) (Bearings from 

France). 

Therefore, for MRG and Pakfood we 

used the reported forward exchange 

rates for currency conversions where 

applicable. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

February 1, 2009, through January 31, 

2010, as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin 

Marine Gold Products Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.68 

Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific (Thailand) Co., Chaophraya Cold Storage Co., Ltd./Okeanos Co. Ltd./ 

Okeanos Food Co. Ltd./Takzin Samut Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................ 0.72 

Review-Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies: 12

Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin 

A. Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

A.S. Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

ACU Transport Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

American Commercial Transport (Thailand) ................................................................................................................................. * 

Ampai Frozen Food Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................... * 

Apex Maritime (Thailand) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Apex Maritime Thailand ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd/Asian Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co./STC Foodpak Ltd ......................... 0.70 

Assoc. Commercial Systems ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

B.S.A. Food Products Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Best Fruits ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

C.P. Merchandising Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

C Y Frozen Food Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Century Industries Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Chaiwarut Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Chue Eie Mong Eak ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Conair Intertraffic Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd and/or Crystal Seafood ................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Dextrans Worldwide (Thailand) Ltd ............................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Dragon International Furniture Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Enburg Food Thai Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Extra Maritime Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................... * 

Findus (Thailand) Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Fujitsu General (Thailand) Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd/Gallant Seafoods Corporation ................................................................................................ 0.70 

Golden Sea Frozen Foods Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Good Fortune Cold Storage Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Good Luck Product Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Great Food (Dehydration) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................... * 

Gulf Coast Crab Intl. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

H.A.M. International Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Heng Seafood Limited Partnership ............................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Herba Bangkok S.L. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Heritrade Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12042 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin 

Inter-Furnitech Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................. * 

Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Inter-Taste Foods Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

K Fresh .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

K. D. Trading Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

KF Foods ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

K & U Enterprise Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................... 0.70 

Kingfisher Holdings Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Kibun Trdg ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Klang Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Kitchens of the Ocean (Thailand) Ltd ........................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Leo Transports ............................................................................................................................................................................... * 

Maersk Line ................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................. * 

May Ao Co., Ltd/May Ao Foods Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Meyer Industries Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Namprik Maesri Ltd Part. ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Narong Seafood Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

National Starch and Chemical Thailand Ltd .................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Noble Marketing Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Oki Data Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd/Thai-Ger Marine Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................... 0.70 

Orion Electric Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Pacific Queen Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Penta Impex Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Pioneer Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Piti Seafoods Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Protainer International Co., Ltd ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd ......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Rayong Coldstorage (1987) Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

S&P Aquarium ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

S&P Syndicate Public Company Ltd ............................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd and/or ...................................................................................................................... * 

S. Khonkaen Food Ind Public.

SMP Foods Products Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Samui Foods Company Limited .................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Seafresh Fisheries/Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Siam Intersea Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Siam Marine Products Co. Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Siam Marine Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................. * 

Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. * 

Siam Union Frozen Foods ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Smile Heart Foods Co. Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Southport Seafood Company Limited ........................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Suntechthai Intertrading Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Surapon Seafoods Public Co., Ltd/Surapon Foods Public Co., Ltd/0.70.

Surat Seafoods Co., Ltd.

Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Suree Interfoods Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

T.H.I. Group (Bangkok) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

T.P. Food Canning Ltd, Part. ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Tanaya International Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Tanaya Intl. .................................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Teppitak Seafood Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12043 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent margin 

Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd .......................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Thai Lee Agriculture Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Thai Ocean Venture Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Thai Onono Public Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Thai Patana Frozen ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Thai Royal Frozen Food Co. Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd/0.70.

Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd.

Thai Union Manufacturing Co., Ltd and/or Thai Union Mfg .......................................................................................................... * 

Thai World Imp & Exp Co. ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Thai Yoo Ltd, Part. ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Thaveevong Industry Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

The Siam Union Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd/Bright Sea Co., Ltd ............................................................................................................ 0.70 

Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd ....................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Transamut Food Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................................................. 0.70 

Tung Lieng Trdg ............................................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

United Cold Storage Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

V Thai Food Product ..................................................................................................................................................................... * 

Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................................ 0.70 

Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd ........................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

YHS Singapore Pte ....................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

ZAFCO TRDG ............................................................................................................................................................................... 0.70 

* No shipments or sales subject to this review. 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c), interested parties may 

submit cases briefs not later than the 

later of 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice or one week 

after the issuance of the cost verification 

report for Pakfood. Rebuttal briefs, 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs, may be filed not later than five 

days after the date for filing case briefs. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are encouraged to 

submit with each argument: (1) A 

statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1870, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. Id. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of the issues 

raised in any written briefs, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). The Department will 

issue appropriate appraisement 

instructions for the companies subject to 

this review directly to CBP 15 days after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

MRG and Pakfood reported the 

entered value for certain of their U.S. 

sales. We will calculate importerspecific ad valorem duty assessment 

rates based on the ratio of the total 

amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of these sales. See 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

For the remainder of MRG’s and 

Pakfood’s U.S. sales, we note that these 

companies did not report the entered 

value for the U.S. sales in question. We 

will calculate importer-specific per-unit 

duty assessment rates by aggregating the 

total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity of those sales. With respect to 

MRG’s and Pakfood’s U.S. sales of 

shrimp with sauce for which no entered 

value was reported, we will include the 

total quantity of the merchandise with 

sauce in the denominator of the 

calculation of the importer-specific rate 

because CBP will apply the per-unit 

duty rate to the total quantity of 

merchandise entered, including the 

sauce weight. To determine whether the 

duty assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

ratios based on the estimated entered 

value. 

For the companies which were not 

selected for individual review, we will 

calculate an assessment rate based on 

the average of the margins calculated for 

those companies selected for individual 

review, weighted by each company’s 

publicly-ranged quantity of reported 

U.S. transactions. In situations where 

we cannot apply our normal 

methodology of calculating a weightedaverage margin due to requests to 

protect business-proprietary information 

but where use of a simple average does 

not yield the best proxy of the weightedaverage margin relative to publicly 

available data, normally we will use the 

publicly available figures as a matter of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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