12054 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

1The Domestic Producers are the Ad Hoc Shrimp 

Trade Action Committee members: Nancy Edens; 

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

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

Shrimp Co.; and Craig Wallis. 

merchandise in question by aggregating 

the dumping margins calculated for all 

U.S. sales to each importer and dividing 

this amount by the total quantity of 

those sales. 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates were de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

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

Department calculated importer-specific 

ad valorem ratios based on the entered 

value or the estimated entered value, 

when entered value was not reported. 

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

will instruct CBP to liquidate without 

regard to antidumping duties any 

entries for which the assessment rate is 

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

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (‘‘Assessment 

Policy Notice’’). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by Venus and 

Facor for which these companies did 

not know that their merchandise was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

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

intermediate involved in the 

transaction. For a full discussion of this 

clarification, see Assessment Policy 

Notice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

completion of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of SS Bar from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

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

deposit rate for the reviewed companies 

will be the rate established in the final 

results of this administrative review, 

except if the rate is less than 0.5 percent 

and is, therefore, de minimis, the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not listed above, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent final results in which that 

manufacturer or exporter participated; 

(3) if the exporter is not a firm covered 

in this review, but was covered in a 

previous review or the original less than 

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

the manufacturer is, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate established for the 

most recent final results for the 

manufacturer of the merchandise; and 

(4) if neither the exporter nor the 

manufacturer is a firm covered in this or 

any previous review conducted by the 

Department, the cash deposit rate will 

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

established in the LTFV investigation. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Stainless 

Steel Bar from India, 59 FR 66915 

(December 28, 1994). These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protection order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of return/ 

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

preliminary results of review in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4981 Filed 3–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Results, Partial 

Rescission, and Request for 

Revocation, In Part, of the Fifth 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

‘‘Department’’) is conducting the fifth 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’) 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

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

(‘‘POR’’) February 1, 2009, through 

January 31, 2010. As discussed below, 

we preliminarily determine that sales 

have been made below normal value 

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

adopted in our final results of review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer-specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: Insert date of 

publication in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Pulongbarit, Paul Walker, or Jerry 

Huang, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 

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

February 1, 2010, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the Order for 

the period February 1, 2009, through 

January 31, 2010. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 5037 (February 1, 2010). 

From February 26, 2010, through 

March 1, 2010, we received requests to 

conduct administrative reviews from the 

American Shrimp Processors 

Association (‘‘ASPA’’), the Louisiana 

Shrimp Association (‘‘LSA’’), the 

Domestic Producers,1 and certain 

Vietnamese companies. The Department 

also received three requests for 

revocation. See ‘‘Requests for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12055 

Revocation, In Part’’ section, below. On 

April 9, 2010, the Department published 

in the Federal Register the notice of 

initiation of this administrative review. 

See Notice of Initiation of 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the 

People’s Republic of China, 75 FR 18154 

(April 9, 2010). 

On September 14, 2010, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice extending the time 

period for issuing the preliminary 

results by 120 days. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Extension of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

55740 (September 14, 2010). 

On April 27, 2010, the Department 

received a letter from Vinh Hoan 

Corporation indicating that it made no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR. On May 7, 2010, the 

Department received letters from 

Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien 

Cuong Seafood Processing Import 

Export Joint-Stock Company, Quoc Viet 

Seaproducts Processing Trading Import 

and Export Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., 

Ltd. and its branch Nam Hai Foodstuff 

and Export Company Ltd., and Vinh Loi 

Import Export Company, indicating that 

they made no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

Of the 146 companies/groups upon 

which we initiated an administrative 

review, 23 companies submitted 

separate-rate certifications, seven 

companies submitted separate-rate 

applications, and six companies stated 

that they did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. The Department addresses the 

review status of each grouping of 

companies below. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), we 

have preliminarily determined that 

Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien 

Cuong Seafood Processing Import 

Export Joint-Stock Company, Quoc Viet 

Seaproducts Processing Trading Import 

and Export Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., 

Ltd. and its branch Nam Hai Foodstuff 

and Export Company Ltd., Vinh Loi 

Import Export Company, and Vinh Hoan 

Corporation made no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR of 

this administrative review. The 

Department received a no-shipment 

certification from the Vinh Hoan 

Corporation on April 27, 2010, and noshipment certifications from Gallant 

Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien Cuong 

Seafood Processing Import Export JointStock Company, Quoc Viet Seaproducts 

Processing Trading Import and Export 

Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and 

its branch Nam Hai Foodstuff and 

Export Company Ltd., and Vinh Loi 

Import Export Company on May 7, 

2010. The Department issued noshipment inquiries to U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) in January 

2011, informing CBP of the no-shipment 

certifications from Gallant Ocean 

(Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Kien Cuong Seafood 

Processing Import Export Joint-Stock 

Company, Quoc Viet Seaproducts 

Processing Trading Import and Export 

Co., Ltd., Viet Hai Foods Co., Ltd. and 

its branch Nam Hai Foodstuff and 

Export Company Ltd., Vinh Loi Import 

Export Company, and Vinh Hoan 

Corporation during the POR, and asking 

CBP to provide any information that 

contradicted these certifications. We did 

not receive any response from CBP, thus 

indicating that there were no entries of 

subject merchandise into the United 

States exported by these companies. 

Additionally, the Department did not 

find any entries of subject merchandise 

into the United States in the CBP data 

on the record. Consequently, as none of 

these companies made exports of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR, we are 

preliminarily rescinding this 

administrative review with respect to 

these six companies. See 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3). 

The Department initiated 

administrative reviews on Camau 

Seafood Fty., Grobest & I–Mei Industry 

Vietnam, and Seafoods and Foodstuff 

Factory Vietnam. Camau Frozen 

Seafood Processing Import Export 

Corporation (‘‘Camimex’’), Grobest & I– 

Mei Industrial Vietnam Co., Ltd., aka 

Grobest, and Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and 

Trading Corporation (‘‘Thuan Phuoc 

Corp.’’), respectively, submitted separate 

rate certifications stating these are 

incorrect deviations of their names 

which were not used during the POR, 

and upon which the Department should 

rescind. Because there is no record 

evidence that these names are not valid 

names for other companies, we are 

preliminarily denying the rescission 

requests for these company names. 

The Department initiated 

administrative reviews on Can Tho 

Animal Fisheries Product Processing 

Export Enterprise, Cuu Long 

Seaproducts Limited and Coastal 

Fisheries Development. Subsequently, 

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation 

(aka ‘‘Cafatex’’), Cuulong Seaproducts 

Company (aka ‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) and 

Coastal Fisheries Development 

Corporation (aka ‘‘COFIDEC’’) submitted 

separate rate certifications. We note that 

COFIDEC, Cafatex and Cuulong Seapro 

have stated that Can Tho Animal 

Fisheries Product Processing Export 

Enterprise, Cuu Long Seaproducts 

Limited and Coastal Fisheries 

Development are derivations of names 

that they have used in the past. Because 

COFIDEC, Cafatex and Cuulong Seapro 

are exporters upon which we are 

conducting a review, we are including 

all names under which they have 

operated, regardless of whether a 

particular name was used during the 

POR. As a consequence, the Department 

finds it inappropriate to rescind on 

these previously used names. 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) directs the 

Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise. However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in the review. 

On April 14, 2010, the Department 

placed on the record data obtained from 

CBP with respect to the selection of 

respondents, inviting comments from 

interested parties. See Letter from the 

Department to Interested Parties, 

Regarding: 2009–2010 Administrative 

Review of the antidumping Duty Order 

of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

CBP Data for Respondent Selection. On 

April 22, 2010, Domestic Producers, 

ASPA/LSA, and certain respondents 

provided comments on the 

Department’s respondent selection 

methodology. 

Because of the large number of 

exporters involved in this review, the 

Department determined to limit the 

number of respondents individually 

examined. On July 30, 2010, the 

Department issued its respondent 

selection memorandum. Based upon 

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

Department selected Camimex, Minh 

Phu Seafood Corporation (and its 

affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., 

and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) 

(collectively ‘‘the Minh Phu Group’’), 

and Nha Trang Seaproduct Company 

(‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) for individual 

examination (hereinafter collectively 

‘‘mandatory respondents’’) because they 

were the largest exporters, by volume, of 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

See July 30, 2010, Memorandum to 

James C. Doyle, through Scot T. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12056 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

2See the Department’s Letter to All Interested 

Parties; Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, dated August 20, 2010. 

Fullerton, from Susan Pulongbarit, 

regarding: Selection of Respondents for 

the 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Respondent 

Selection Memo’’). The Department sent 

antidumping duty questionnaires to 

Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and 

Nha Trang Seafoods on August 3, 2010. 

Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and 

Nha Trang Seafoods submitted Section 

A Questionnaire Responses (‘‘AQR’’) on 

August 24, 2010. Camimex submitted its 

Section C and Section D Questionnaire 

Responses on September 9, and 

September 10, 2010, respectively. The 

Minh Phu Group submitted its Section 

C and Section D Questionnaire 

Responses on September 23, and 

September 27, 2010, respectively. Nha 

Trang Seafoods submitted its Section C 

and Section D Questionnaire Responses 

on September 10, and September 21, 

2010, respectively. The Department 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and 

Nha Trang Seafoods between September 

2010 and January 2011 to which all 

companies responded. 

Collapsing 

As indicated above, the Department 

selected Nha Trang Seafoods as one of 

the mandatory respondents in this 

investigation. In responding to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire, Nha Trang Seafoods 

treated itself and its affiliates, NT 

Seafoods Corporation (‘‘NT Seafoods’’), 

Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89 Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89’’), 

and NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘NTSF Seafoods’’), as a single 

entity, i.e., collapsed NT Seafoods, Nha 

Trang Seafoods—F.89, and NTSF 

Seafoods with itself. Nha Trang 

Seafoods based its decision to collapse 

NT Seafoods, Nha Trang Seafoods— 

F.89, and NTSF Seafoods with itself 

primarily on the fact that Nha Trang 

Seafoods is a significant shareholder of 

each of its affiliates and each of these 

companies produced subject 

merchandise and exported it to the 

United States through Nha Trang 

Seafoods. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the 

Department will collapse producers and 

treat them as a single entity where (1) 

Those producers are affiliated, (2) the 

producers have production facilities for 

producing similar or identical products 

that would not require substantial 

retooling of either facility in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities, 

and (3) there is a significant potential 

for manipulation of price or production. 

To the extent that this provision does 

not conflict with the Department’s 

application of separate rates and 

enforcement of the non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’) provision, section 773(c) of the 

Act, the Department will collapse two or 

more affiliated entities in a case 

involving an NME country if the facts of 

the case warrant such treatment. 

Furthermore, we note the factors listed 

in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not 

exhaustive, and in the context of an 

NME investigation or administrative 

review, other factors unique to the 

relationship of business entities within 

the NME country may lead the 

Department to determine that collapsing 

is either warranted or unwarranted, 

depending on the facts of the case. See 

Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United 

States, 248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1342 (CIT 

2003) (noting that the application of 

collapsing in the NME context may 

differ from the standard factors listed in 

the regulation). 

In summary, if there is evidence of 

significant potential for manipulation 

between or among affiliates which 

produce and/or export similar or 

identical merchandise, whether or not 

all such merchandise is exported to the 

United States, the Department may find 

such evidence sufficient to apply the 

collapsing criteria in an NME context in 

order to determine whether all or some 

of those affiliates should be treated as 

one entity. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon 

Steel Flat Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 

2001); Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

the People’s Republic of China, 66 FR 

49632 (September 28, 2001); and 

Anshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd. v. United 

States, 27 C.I.T. 1234, 1246–47 (CIT 

2003). 

The decision of whether to collapse 

two or more affiliated companies is 

specific to the facts presented in the 

proceeding and is based on several 

considerations, including the structure 

of the collapsed entity, the level of 

control between and among affiliates, 

and the level of participation by each 

affiliate in the proceeding. Given the 

unique relationships which arise in 

NMEs between individual companies 

and the government, the same separate 

rate will be assigned to each individual 

company that is part of the collapsed 

entity only if the facts, taken as a whole, 

support such a finding (see ‘‘Separate 

Rates’’ section below for further 

discussion). 

Based on the reasons explained in the 

Collapsing Memo, and pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily 

collapsed NT Seafoods, Nha Trang 

Seafoods—F.89, NTSF Seafoods, and 

Nha Trang Seafoods because they are 

affiliated producers of the merchandise 

under consideration, and because there 

is a significant potential for 

manipulation of prices and production 

decisions between these parties. See 

Memorandum to Christian Marsh, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations, through James Doyle, 

Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, 

from Susan Pulongbarit, International 

Trade Analyst, Office 9, AD/CVD 

Operations, Regarding Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Whether 

to Collapse NT Seafoods Corporation, 

Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89 Joint Stock 

Company, and NTSF Seafoods Joint 

Stock Company with Nha Trang 

Seaproduct Company, dated February 

28, 2011 (‘‘Collapsing Memo’’). For all 

relevant purposes, all subsequent 

references in this notice to the Nha 

Trang Seafoods Group will be to the 

collapsed entity that includes NT 

Seafoods, Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89, 

and NTSF Seafoods. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Data 

On August 20, 2010, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter inviting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and surrogate value data.2 On 

September 14, 2010, the Department 

extended the comment period for 

surrogate country selection from 

September 20, 2010, to October 4, 2010, 

and for surrogate value comments from 

October 20, 2010, to November 3, 2010. 

On October 4, 2010, the Department 

received comments on surrogate country 

selection from Domestic Producers. On 

November 3, 2010, the Department 

received information to value factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’) from ASPA/LSA, 

Domestic Producers and the mandatory 

respondents, Camimex, the Minh Phu 

Group, and Nha Trang Group. On 

November 12, 2010, the Department 

received a rebuttal response to Domestic 

Producers’ surrogate value (‘‘SV’’) 

submission from the mandatory 

respondents. The SVs placed on the 

record from ASPA/LSA and the 

mandatory respondents were obtained 

from sources in Bangladesh, whereas 

the SVs placed on the record by 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12057 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

4Camimex, Grobest & I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’) and Phuong Nam Foodstuff 

Corp. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’) (collectively, the ‘‘revocation 

companies’’). 

Domestic Producers were obtained from 

sources in the Philippines. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of the order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,3

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

the order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of the order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of the order. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 

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 (HTS 

subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled 

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

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; (3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

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

the end product constituting between 

four and 10 percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by the order are 

currently classified under the following 

HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 

0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 

0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 

0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 

0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 

0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10 and 

1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

the order is dispositive. 

Requests for Revocation, In Part 

During the request for review period 

in this review, three respondents 4

requested that the Order be partially 

revoked with respect to them. Of the 

revocation companies, Camimex is a 

mandatory respondent, and the 

remaining two are separate rate 

respondents in this proceeding. 

In their request for revocation, the 

revocation companies argued that each 

has maintained three consecutive years 

of sales at not less than NV, and that, 

as a result, they are eligible for 

revocation under section 751(d) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). 

We preliminarily determine not to 

revoke the Order with respect to the 

revocation companies that were not 

selected for individual review. The Act 

affords the Department broad discretion 

to limit the number of respondents 

selected for individual review when the 

large number of review requests makes 

the individual calculation of dumping 

margins for all companies under review 

impracticable. Specifically, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act provides that, if it 

is not practicable for the Department to 

make individual dumping margin 

determinations because of the large 

number of exporters or producers 

involved, the Department may 

determine margins for a reasonable 

number of exporters or producers. 

Although the Department’s regulations 

set out rules and procedures for possible 

revocation of a dumping order, in whole 

or in part, based on an absence of 

dumping, it is silent on the applicability 

of this regulation when the Department 

has limited its examination under 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The 

Department does not interpret the 

regulation as requiring it to conduct an 

individual examination of the nonselected revocation companies, or a 

verification of the companies’ data, 

where, as here, the Department 

determined to limit its examination to a 

reasonable number of exporters in 

accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B), 

and the non-selected revocation 

companies were not selected under this 

provision. Nothing in the regulation 

requires the Department to conduct an 

individual examination and verification 

when the Department has limited its 

review, under section 777A(c)(2). As 

explained above, the non-selected 

revocation companies were not selected 

for individual review because, pursuant 

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

Department selected the three largest 

exporters, by volume. See Respondent 

Selection Memo. Thus, because we have 

not selected the non-selected revocation 

companies for individual examination, 

we preliminarily determine not to 

revoke the Order with respect to these 

companies. 

However, the non-selected revocation 

companies filed timely separate-rate 

certifications, as evidence of each 

company’s continued eligibility for a 

separate rate. Thus, the Department 

considers the non-selected revocation 

companies to be cooperative 

respondents eligible for a separate rate. 

Furthermore, with respect to 

Camimex’s request for revocation, as a 

mandatory respondent in this review, 

we preliminarily determine not to 

revoke the Order. In its request for 

revocation, Camimex argued that, with 

the completion of this review, it would 

have maintained three consecutive years 

of sales at not less than NV. Camimex 

argued that, as a result of three 

consecutive years of sales at not less 

than NV, it is eligible for revocation 

under section 751(d)(1) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.222(b)(2). However, for 

these preliminary results, based on sales 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12058 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

5See Appendix 1. 

6See Appendix II. 

7See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and 

Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191 (September 15, 

2009) (‘‘3rd AR Final’’) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 17. 

and production data provided by 

Camimex for the fifth administrative 

review, the Department has calculated a 

(non-de minimis) positive margin for 

Camimex. Therefore, under 751(d)(1) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(b)(2), we 

have preliminarily determined not to 

revoke the Order with respect to 

Camimex. 

Verification 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), 

between December 13, and December 

18, 2010, the Department conducted a 

verification of Cam Ranh Seafoods 

Processing Enterprise Pte.’s (‘‘Cam 

Ranh’’) separate rate status and 

Camimex’s sales and FOPs. See 

Memorandum to the File through Paul 

Walker, Acting Program Manager, Office 

9, from Jerry Huang, International Trade 

Analyst, ‘‘Verification of the Cam Ranh 

Seafoods Processing Enterprise Pte. 

Separate Rate Response in the 2009–10 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam’’, dated March 8, 

2010; Memorandum to the File through 

Paul Walker, Acting Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Jerry Huang, International 

Trade Analyst, ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

and Factors of Production Response 

Camimex in the 2009–10 Administrative 

Review of Certain Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’’, 

dated March 8, 2010. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam 

has been treated as an NME country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results, Partial Rescission 

and Request for Revocation, in Part, of 

the Fourth Administrative Review, 75 

FR 12206 (March 15, 2010) (unchanged 

in final results). None of the parties to 

this proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

the NV in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, it is the Department’s practice 

to begin with a rebuttable presumption 

that all companies within the country 

are subject to government control and 

thus should be assessed a single 

antidumping duty rate. See, e.g., 

Separate Rates and Combination Rates 

in Antidumping Investigations involving 

Non-Market Economy Countries. 70 FR 

17233 (April 5, 2005); see also Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Affirmative 

Critical Circumstances, In Part: Certain 

Lined Paper Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 53079, 53082 

(September 8, 2006); Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303, 29307 

(May 22, 2006) (‘‘Diamond Sawblades’’). 

It is the Department’s policy to assign 

all exporters of merchandise subject to 

investigation in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

affirmatively demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. See, e.g., 

Diamond Sawblades, 71 FR at 29307. 

Exporters can demonstrate this 

independence through the absence of 

both de jure and de facto government 

control over export activities. Id. The 

Department analyzes each entity 

exporting the subject merchandise 

under a test arising from the Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Sparklers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as further 

developed in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585, 22586–87 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’). However, if the Department 

determines that a company is wholly 

foreign-owned or located in a market 

economy (‘‘ME’’), then a separate rate 

analysis is not necessary to determine 

whether it is independent from 

government control. See, e.g., Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax 

Candles from the People’s Republic of 

China, 72 FR 52355, 52356 (September 

13, 2007). 

In addition to the three mandatory 

respondents, Camimex, the Minh Phu 

Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods Group, 

the Department received separate rate 

applications or certifications from the 

following 20 companies (‘‘Separate-Rate 

Applicants’’): Amanda Foods (Vietnam) 

Limited; Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company; C.P. Vietnam Livestock 

Corporation; Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock 

Corporation, aka Cafatex Corp.; 

Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and 

Processing Joint Stock Company, aka 

CADOVIMEX–VIETNAM; Ca Mau 

Seafood Joint Stock Company, aka 

Seaprimexco Vietnam; Camranh 

Seafoods and Branch of Cam Ranh; Can 

Tho Import Export Fishery Limited 

Company, aka CAFISH; CATACO Sole 

Member Limited Liability Company, aka 

CATACO; Coastal Fisheries 

Development Corporation, aka 

COFIDEX; Cuulong Seaproducts 

Company, aka Cuulong Seapro; Danang 

Seaproducts Import Export Corporation, 

aka Seaprodex Danang and its branch 

Tho Quang Seafood Processing and 

Export Company; Grobest & I-Mei 

Industrial Vietnam Co., Ltd., aka 

Grobest; Investment Commerce 

Fisheries Corporation, aka INCOMFISH; 

Kim Anh Company, Limited; Minh Hai 

Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint 

Stock Company, aka Minh Hai Jostoco; 

Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods 

Processing Company, aka Seaprodex 

Minh Hai; Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise 

and its branch, Ngoc Sinh Seafoods 

Processing and Trading Enterprise, aka 

Ngoc Sinh Seafoods; Nhat Dhuc Co., 

Ltd.; Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company, aka Nha Trang Fisco; Phu 

Cuong Jostoco Seafood Corporation; 

Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp., aka 

Phuong Nam Co., Ltd.; Sao Ta Foods 

Joint Stock Company, aka FIMEX VN; 

Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock 

Company, aka STAPIMEX; Thuan 

Phuoc Seafoods and Trading 

Corporation; UTXI Aquatic Products 

Corporation, aka UTXICO; and Viet Hai 

Seafood Co., Ltd., a/k/a Vietnam Fish 

One Co., Ltd. However, 90 companies 

did not submit either a separate-rate 

application or certification.5 Therefore, 

because these companies did not 

demonstrate their eligibility for separate 

rate status, they remain preliminarily 

included as part of the Vietnam-wide 

entity. 

Additionally, we note that some of the 

Separate-Rate Applicants requested 

separate rate status for various names 

which were not included on their 

business license.6 Because these names 

(1) have not been granted separate-rate 

status in a previous granting period, and 

(2) do not appear on the business 

license submitted to the Department, 

and therefore are not recognized as 

representing the same entity, we are 

preliminarily not including these names 

on the lists of those which separate rate 

status applies.7

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12059 

8See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 

8273, 8279 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in final 

results). 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. The evidence 

provided by Camimex, the Minh Phu 

Group, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, and 

the Separate-Rate Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of government control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) there 

are formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

See, e.g., Camimex’s AQR at Exhibit A– 

1, the Minh Phu Group’s AQR at Exhibit 

1, Nha Trang Seafoods Group’s AQR at 

Exhibit A–1. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22586–87; see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 

22544, 22545 (May 8, 1995). The 

Department has determined that an 

analysis of de facto control is critical in 

determining whether respondents are, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

government control which would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

separate rates. The evidence provided 

by Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, Nha 

Trang Seafoods Group, and the 

Separate-Rate Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de facto absence 

of government control based on the 

following: (1) The companies set their 

own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) the 

companies have authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) the companies have 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) there 

is no restriction on any of the 

companies’ use of export revenue. See, 

e.g., Camimex’s AQR at 2–15 and 

Exhibit A–1, the Minh Phu Group’s 

AQR at 3–26 and Exhibit A–1, Nha 

Trang Seafoods Group’s AQR at 3–16 

and Exhibit A–1. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that 

Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, Nha 

Trang Seafoods Group, and the 

Separate-Rate Applicants have 

established that they qualify for a 

separate rate under the criteria 

established by Silicon Carbide and 

Sparklers. 

Separate Rate Calculation 

For exporters subject to 

administrative review that were 

determined to be eligible for separate 

rate status, but were not selected as 

mandatory respondents, the Department 

generally weight-averages the rates 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondents, excluding any rates that 

are zero, de minimis, or based entirely 

on facts available.8 Consequently, 

consistent with our practice, we have 

preliminarily established a margin for 

the separate rate respondents based on 

the rates we calculated for the two 

mandatory respondents that received a 

calculated margin. We note that it is the 

Department’s practice to calculate the 

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. See Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

France, et al.: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Final Results of ChangedCircumstances Review, and Revocation 

of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 

(Sept. 1, 2010) (‘‘Ball Bearings’’). 

Because we cannot apply our normal 

methodology of calculating a weightedaverage margin due to requests to 

protect business-proprietary 

information, we have calculated the 

separate rate based on a simple average 

of Camimex and the Minh Phu Group’s 

margins. Following these preliminary 

results, the Department intends to 

request that the mandatory respondents 

provide the Department with publiclyranged quantities of their reported U.S. 

transactions. 

Vietnam-Wide Entity 

Upon initiation of the administrative 

review, we provided the opportunity for 

all companies upon which the review 

was initiated to complete either the 

separate-rates application or 

certification. The separate-rate 

certification and separate-rate 

applications were available at: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that 90 companies did not demonstrate 

their eligibility for a separate rate and 

are properly considered part of the 

Vietnam-wide entity. In NME 

proceedings, ‘‘‘rates’ may consist of a 

single dumping margin applicable to all 

exporters and producers.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.107(d). As explained above in the 

‘‘Separate Rates’’ section, all companies 

within Vietnam are considered to be 

subject to government control unless 

they are able to demonstrate an absence 

of government control with respect to 

their export activities. Such companies 

are thus assigned a single antidumping 

duty rate distinct from the separate 

rate(s) determined for companies that 

are found to be independent of 

government control with respect to their 

export activities. We consider the 

influence that the government has been 

found to have over the economy to 

warrant determining a rate for the entity 

that is distinct from the rates found for 

companies that have provided sufficient 

evidence to establish that they operate 

freely with respect to their export 

activities. See Notice of Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

37116 (June 23, 2003). In this regard, we 

note that no party has submitted 

evidence of the proceeding to 

demonstrate that such government 

influence is no longer present or that 

our treatment of the NME entity is 

otherwise incorrect. Therefore, we are 

assigning the entity’s current rate of 

25.76%, the only rate ever determined 

for the Vietnam-wide entity in this 

proceeding. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department conducts an 

antidumping administrative review of 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

ME country or countries considered to 

be appropriate by the Department. In 

accordance with section 773(c)(4) of the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12060 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

9See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for a 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

dated May 15, 2009 (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’). 

10See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2A. 

11 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for 

the final results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual information to 

rebut, clarify, or correct factual information 

Act, in valuing the FOPs, the 

Department shall utilize, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of FOPs in 

one or more ME countries that are: (1) 

At a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country; 

and (2) significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. Further, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(2), the 

Department will normally value FOP in 

a single country, except for labor. The 

sources of the surrogate factor values are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section below and in Memorandum to 

the File through Paul Walker, Acting 

Program Manager, Office 9 from Jerry 

Huang, International Trade Analyst, 

Office 9; 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate 

Values for the Preliminary Results, 

dated February 28, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate 

Value Memorandum’’). 

On August 20, 2010, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and information pertaining to 

valuing FOPs. On October 4, 2010, the 

Department received comments from 

the Domestic Producers and mandatory 

respondents regarding surrogate 

country. The Domestic Producers 

submitted surrogate country comments 

suggesting that the Department select 

the Philippines as the surrogate country 

and the mandatory respondents 

submitted surrogate country comments 

suggesting that the Department select 

Bangladesh as the surrogate country. 

On November 3, 2010, ASPA/LSA, 

Domestic Producers, and the mandatory 

respondents submitted SV data. On 

November 12, 2010, the Department 

received a rebuttal response to the 

Domestic Producers’ SV submission 

from the mandatory respondents. 

Pursuant to its practice, the 

Department received a list of potential 

surrogate countries from Import 

Administration’s Office of Policy 

(‘‘OP’’).9 The OP determined that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, 

the Philippines, and Indonesia were at 

a comparable level of economic 

development to Vietnam. See Surrogate 

Country List. The Department considers 

the six countries identified by the OP in 

its Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally 

comparable in terms of economic 

development.’’ Id. Thus, we find that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, 

the Philippines, and Indonesia are all at 

an economic level of development 

equally comparable to that of Vietnam. 

We note that the Surrogate Country List 

is a non-exhaustive list of economically 

comparable countries. Moreover, we 

find that Egypt, Indonesia, and the 

Philippines are both economically 

comparable to Vietnam and significant 

producers of the subject merchandise. 

We also note that the record does not 

contain publicly available SV factor 

information Pakistan, India, or Sri 

Lanka. 

With regard to Indonesia, the record 

contains publicly available surrogate 

factor value information for some 

factors. The Minh Phu Group, Nha 

Trang Seafoods Group, and Camimex 

provided data for both Indonesia and 

Bangladesh from a study conducted by 

the Network of Aquaculture Centres in 

Asia-Pacific (‘‘NACA’’), an 

intergovernmental organization 

affiliated with the United Nation’s 

(‘‘UN’’) Food and Agricultural 

Organization (‘‘FAO’’). However, unlike 

the Bangladeshi data within the NACA 

study, the Indonesian shrimp data is 

limited and does not satisfy as many 

factors of the Department’s data 

selection criteria (e.g., broad-market 

average). Thus, Indonesia is not the 

most appropriate surrogate country for 

purposes of this review. 

With regard to the Philippines, the 

record contains publicly available 

surrogate factor value information for all 

FOPs. Domestic Producers provided 

shrimp data for the Philippines from the 

2009 Fisheries Situationer, published by 

the Philippines Bureau of Agricultural 

Statistics (‘‘BAS’’). Dissimilar to the 

Bangladeshi data within the NACA 

study, the Philippine shrimp data is 

limited and does not satisfy as many 

factors of the Department’s data 

selection criteria. Specifically, we note 

that the 2009 Fisheries Situationer 

contains no count-size specific data. In 

prior administrative reviews, the 

Department found that count-size 

specific data is important in calculating 

accurate dumping margins, and rejected 

shrimp SVs with limited count sizes. 

See 3rd AR Final at Comment 6. Thus, 

the Philippines is not the most 

appropriate surrogate country for 

purposes of this review. 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting the best available information 

for valuing FOPs, in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act, is to select, 

to the extent practicable, SVs which are 

product-specific, representative of a 

broad-market average, publicly 

available, contemporaneous with the 

POR and exclusive of taxes and duties.10

As a general matter, the Department 

prefers to use publicly available data 

representing a broad-market average to 

value SVs. Id. The Department notes 

that the value of the main input, headon, shell-on shrimp, is a critical FOP in 

the dumping calculation as it accounts 

for a significant percentage of NV. 

Moreover, the ability to value shrimp on 

a count-size basis is a significant 

consideration with respect to the data 

available on the record, as the subject 

merchandise and the raw shrimp input 

are both sold on a count-size specific 

basis. 

The Bangladeshi shrimp values 

within the NACA study are compiled by 

the UN’s FAO from actual pricing 

records kept by Bangladeshi farmers, 

traders, depots, agents, and processors. 

See Surrogate Value Memorandum. The 

Bangladeshi shrimp values within the 

NACA study are publicly available, 

represent a broad-market average, are 

product-specific, count-size-specific, 

contemporaneous and represent actual 

transaction prices. Regarding the 

Philippine data, BAS is unclear in the 

methodology it used to gather the 

average price for black tiger shrimp, 

whether the price is calculated from 

actual transaction prices, and the 

timeframe for data collection. Therefore, 

with respect to the data considerations, 

because the record contains shrimp 

values for Bangladesh that better meet 

our selection criteria than the 

Philippine source, we are selecting 

Bangladesh as the surrogate country. 

In this regard, given the above-cited 

facts, we find that the information on 

the record shows that Bangladesh is an 

appropriate surrogate country because 

Bangladesh is at a similar level of 

economic development pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and has reliable, publicly 

available data for surrogate valuation 

purposes. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

an antidumping administrative review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary 

results.11


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12061 

submitted by an interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable deadline for 

submission of such factual information. However, 

the Department notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) 

permits new information only insofar as it rebuts, 

clarifies, or corrects information recently placed on 

the record. See Glycine from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in 

Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

12See also 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 (December 23, 2004) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10. 

13See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act 

of 1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. 

Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) (‘‘OTCA 

1988’’) at 590. 

14See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year 

(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 

75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

4; see Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; see 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 

2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 23. 

Date of Sale 

Camimex, the Minh Phu Group, and 

Nha Trang Seafoods Group reported the 

invoice date as the date of sale because 

they claim that, for their U.S. sales of 

subject merchandise made during the 

POR, the material terms of sale were 

established on the invoice date. The 

Department preliminarily determines 

that the invoice date is the most 

appropriate date to use as Camimex, the 

Minh Phu Group, and Nha Trang 

Seafoods Group’s date of sale, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i).12

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp to the United 

States by Camimex, the Minh Phu 

Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods Group 

were made at less-than-fair-value, the 

Department compared the export price 

(‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described in the ‘‘U.S. 

Price,’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections 

below. 

U.S. Price 

A. Export Price 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, the Department calculated the 

EP for sales to the United States from 

Camimex, Nha Trang Seafoods Group, 

and some of the Minh Phu Group’s 

sales, because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated party was made before the 

date of importation. The Department 

calculated EP based on the price to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. In accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, we 

deducted from the starting price to 

unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 

freight and brokerage and handling. 

Each of these services was either 

provided by an NME vendor or paid for 

using an NME currency. Thus, we based 

the deduction of these movement 

charges on SVs. Additionally, for 

international freight provided by an ME 

provider and paid in an ME currency, 

we used the actual cost per kilogram of 

the freight. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum for details regarding the 

SVs for movement expenses. 

B. Constructed Export Price 

For the majority of the Minh Phu 

Group’s sales, we based U.S. price on 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) in 

accordance with section 772(b) of the 

Act, because sales were made on behalf 

of the Vietnam-based company by its 

U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers 

in the United States. For these sales, we 

based CEP on prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price (gross 

unit price) for foreign movement 

expenses, international movement 

expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and 

appropriate selling adjustments, in 

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

the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we also deducted those 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States. We deducted, where 

appropriate, commissions, inventory 

carrying costs, credit expenses, and 

indirect selling expenses. Where foreign 

movement expenses, international 

movement expenses, or U.S. movement 

expenses were provided by Vietnam 

service providers or paid for in 

Vietnamese Dong, we valued these 

services using SVs (see ‘‘Factors of 

Production’’ section below for further 

discussion). For those expenses that 

were provided by an ME provider and 

paid for in ME currency, we used the 

reported expense. Due to the proprietary 

nature of certain adjustments to U.S. 

price, for a detailed description of all 

adjustments made to U.S. price for all of 

the mandatory respondents, see 

Memorandum to the File, from Paul 

Walker, Acting Program Manager, Office 

9, 2009–2010 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: MPG 

Program Analysis for the Preliminary 

Determination, dated February 28, 2011. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using an FOPs methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by respondents for the 

POR, except as noted above. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per-unit factor-consumption 

rates by publicly available Bangladeshi 

SVs. In selecting the SVs, we considered 

the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Bangladeshi import SVs a surrogate 

freight cost using the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory of production or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory of production where 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit’s (‘‘CAFC’’) 

decision in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). Where we did not use 

Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we 

calculated freight based on the reported 

distance from the supplier to the 

factory. 

In accordance with the OTCA 1988 

legislative history, the Department 

continues to apply its long-standing 

practice of disregarding SVs if it has a 

reason to believe or suspect the source 

data may be subsidized.13 In this regard, 

the Department has previously found 

that it is appropriate to disregard such 

prices from India, Indonesia, South 

Korea and Thailand because we have 

determined that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry specific export subsidies.14

Based on the existence of these subsidy 

programs that were generally available 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12062 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

15See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished, From the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of 1998–1999 

Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of 

Review, and Determination Not To Revoke Order in 

Part, 66 FR 1953 (January 10, 2001), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. 

16For a detailed explanation of the Department’s 

valuation of shrimp, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

17This can be accessed online at: http:// 

www.unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/. 

to all exporters and producers in these 

countries at the time of the POR, the 

Department finds that it is reasonable to 

infer that all exporters from India, 

Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand 

may have benefitted from these 

subsidies. 

Additionally, we disregarded prices 

from NME countries.15 Finally, imports 

that were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

from the average value, because the 

Department could not be certain that 

they were not from either an NME 

country or a country with general export 

subsidies. For further detail, see 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Therefore, based on the information 

currently available, we have not used 

prices from these countries either in 

calculating the Bangladeshi importbased SVs or in calculating ME input 

values. In instances where an ME input 

was obtained solely from suppliers 

located in these countries, we used 

Bangladeshi import-based SVs to value 

the input. 

The Department notes that Domestic 

Producers submitted Philippine shrimp 

values and the mandatory respondents 

submitted Bangladeshi shrimp values 

with which to value the main input, raw 

shrimp. Domestic Producers submitted 

Philippine shrimp values obtained from 

the January–December 2009 Fisheries 

Situationer published by the 

Philippines Department of Agriculture 

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. As 

stated above, the Minh Phu Group, Nha 

Trang Seafoods Group, Grobest, and 

Camimex submitted data contained in 

the NACA study compiled by the UN’s 

FAO. 

As stated above, the Department’s 

practice when selecting the best 

available information for valuing FOPs 

is to select, to the extent practicable, 

SVs which are product-specific, 

representative of a broad-market 

average, publicly available, 

contemporaneous with the POR and 

exclusive of taxes and duties. Domestic 

Producers’ submitted shrimp value from 

the Fisheries Situationer, although 

publicly available, is not count-size 

specific. As noted above, the shrimp 

values within the NACA study are 

compiled from actual pricing records 

kept by Bangladeshi farmers, traders, 

depots, agents, and processors, are 

count-specific, and publicly available. 

Therefore, to value the main input, 

head-on, shell-on shrimp, the 

Department used data contained in the 

NACA study.16

The Department used United Nations 

ComTrade Statistics, provided by the 

UN Department of Economic and Social 

Affairs’ Statistics Division, as its 

primary source of Bangladeshi SV 

data.17 The data represents cumulative 

values for the calendar year 2007, for 

inputs classified by the Harmonized 

Commodity Description and Coding 

System number. For each input value, 

we used the average value per unit for 

that input imported into Bangladesh 

from all countries that the Department 

has not previously determined to be 

NME countries. Import statistics from 

countries that the Department has 

determined to be countries which 

subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, 

South Korea, Thailand, and India) and 

imports from unspecified countries also 

were excluded in the calculation of the 

average value. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). 

Lastly, the Department has also 

excluded imports from Bangladesh into 

Bangladesh because there is no evidence 

on the record regarding what these data 

represent (e.g., re-importations, another 

category of unspecified imports, or the 

result of an error in reporting). Thus, 

these data do not represent the best 

available information upon which to 

rely for valuation purposes. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price index adjustors to inflate 

or deflate, as appropriate, SVs that are 

not contemporaneous with the POR 

using the wholesale price index (‘‘WPI’’) 

for the subject country. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Hand Trucks 

and Certain Parts Thereof From the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 29509 

(May 24, 2004). However, in this case, 

a WPI was not available for Bangladesh. 

Therefore, where publicly available 

information contemporaneous with the 

POR with which to value factors could 

not be obtained, SVs were adjusted 

using the Consumer Price Index (‘‘CPI’’) 

rate for Bangladesh, or the WPI for India 

or Indonesia (for certain SVs where 

Bangladeshi data could not be 

obtained), as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. We made 

currency conversions, where necessary, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. 

dollars using the daily exchange rate 

corresponding to the reported date of 

each sale. We relied on the daily 

exchange rates posted on the Import 

Administration Web site (http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia/). See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

The Department used UN ComTrade 

to value the raw material and packing 

material inputs that Camimex, the Minh 

Phu Group, and Nha Trang Seafoods 

Group used to produce the merchandise 

under review during the POR, except 

where listed below. For a detailed 

description of all SVs for respondents, 

see Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

On May 14, 2010, the CAFC in 

Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 F.3d 

1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), found that the 

‘‘{regression-based} method for 

calculating wage rates {as stipulated by 

19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)} uses data not 

permitted by {the statutory 

requirements laid out in section 773 of 

the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 1677b(c))}.’’ The 

Department is continuing to evaluate 

options for determining labor values in 

light of the recent CAFC decision. 

However, for these preliminary results, 

we have calculated an hourly wage rate 

to use in valuing the respondents’ 

reported labor input by averaging 

industry-specific earnings and/or wages 

in countries that are economically 

comparable to Vietnam and that are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. 

For the preliminary results of this 

administrative review, the Department 

is valuing labor using a simple average 

industry-specific wage rate using 

earnings or wage data reported under 

Chapter 5B by the International Labor 

Organization (‘‘ILO’’). To achieve an 

industry-specific labor value, we relied 

on industry-specific labor data from the 

countries we determined to be both 

economically comparable to Vietnam, 

and significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. A full description of the 

industry-specific wage rate calculation 

methodology is provided in the 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. The 

Department calculated a simple average 

industry-specific wage rate of $1.09 for 

these preliminary results. Specifically, 

for this review, the Department has 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12063 

calculated the wage rate using a simple 

average of the data provided to the ILO 

under Sub-Classification 15 of the ISIC– 

Revision 3 standard by countries 

determined to be both economically 

comparable to Vietnam and significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The Department finds the two-digit 

description under ISIC–Revision 3 

(‘‘Manufacture of Food Products and 

Beverages’’) to be the best available wage 

rate SV on the record because it is 

specific and derived from industries 

that produce merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. 

Consequently, we averaged the ILO 

industry-specific wage rate data or 

earnings data available from the 

following countries found to be 

economically comparable to Vietnam 

and are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise: Egypt, 

Indonesia, and the Philippines. For 

further information on the calculation of 

the wage rate, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum. 

We valued electricity using data from 

the Bangladesh Ministry of Power, 

Energy, & Mineral Resources. This 

information was published on their 

Power Division’s website. See Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

We valued water using 2007 data from 

the Asian Development Bank. We 

inflated the value using the POR average 

CPI rate. Id. 

We valued diesel using data 

published by the World Bank in 

‘‘Bangladesh: Transport at a Glance,’’ 

published in June 2006. We inflated the 

value using the POR average CPI rate. 

Id. 

To value truck freight and river 

freight, we used data published in 2008 

Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh 

published by the Bangladesh Bureau of 

Statistics. We inflated the value using 

the POR average CPI rate. Id. 

To value marine insurance, the 

Department used rates from RJG 

Consultants. These rates are for sea 

freight from the Far East Region. Id. 

We valued warehouse/cold storage 

rates published in an article on tropicalseeds.com in July 1997. We inflated the 

value using the POR average CPI rate. 

Id. 

We valued containerization using 

information previously available on the 

Import Administration website. We 

inflated the value using the POR average 

WPI rate. Id. 

The Department valued terminal lift 

charges using data from the Web sites 

http://www.oocl.com/bangladesh/eng/ 

localinformation/localsurcharges/ 

?site=bangladesh&lang=eng and http:// 

www.srinternational.com/ 

standard_containers.htm. We inflated 

the value using the POR average WPI 

rate. See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

We valued the by-product using shell 

scrap values from the Memorandum to 

Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of 

AD/CVD Enforcement VII, through 

Maureen Flannery, Program Manager, 

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, 

from Christian Hughes and Adina 

Teodorescu, Case Analysts, subject: 

Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC), 

Administrative Review 9/1/00–8/31/00 

and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00–8/31/ 

01 and 9/1/00–10/15/01. We inflated the 

value using the POR average WPI rate. 

Id. 

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we used the simple average 

of the 2009–2010 financial statement of 

Apex Foods Limited and the 2008–2009 

financial statement of Gemini Seafood 

Limited, both of which are Bangladeshi 

shrimp processors. See Surrogate Value 

Memorandum, at Exhibit 8. 

Currency Conversion 

Where necessary, the Department 

made currency conversions into U.S. 

dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

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

Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist: 

Exporter 

Simple 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’) aka.

Camimex aka.

Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 aka.

Camau Seafood Factory No. 5 aka.

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import & Export aka.

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corp. (CAMIMEX–FAC 25) aka. 1.36 

Frozen Factory No. 4.

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’) aka.

Camimex aka.

Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 aka.

Camau Seafood Factory No. 5.

Minh Phu Group: 

Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., aka.

Minh Phat Seafood aka.

Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) aka.

Minh Phu Seafood Corp. aka.

Minh Phu Seafood Corporation aka.

Minh Qui Seafood aka. 1.67 

Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd.

Minh Phu Seafood Pte aka.

Minh Phat aka.

Minh Qui.

Nha Trang Seafoods Group: 

Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) aka. 

Nha Trang Seafoods aka.

Nha Trang Seaproduct Company Nha Trang Seafoods aka. de minimis 

NT Seafoods Corporation (‘‘NT Seafoods’’).


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12064 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

Exporter 

Simple 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89 Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89’’).

aka.

NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company (‘‘NTSF Seafoods’’).

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited (‘‘Amanda Foods’’) 1.52 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited, aka.

Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’) aka.

Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company aka.

Bac Lieu Fisheries Limited Company aka. 1.52 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited aka.

Bac Lieu Fis.

C.P. Vietnam Livestock Company Limited aka.

C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corporation (‘‘C.P. Vietnam’’) aka. 1.52 

C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corporation.

Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX–VIETNAM’’) aka.

Cadovimex-Vietnam aka.

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (‘‘Cadovimex’’) aka.

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex) aka. 1.52 

Cai Doi Vam Seafood aka.

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Im-Ex Company (Cadovimex) aka.

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Processing Factory aka.

Caidoivam Seafood Company (Cadovimex) aka.

Caidoivam Seafood Im-Ex Co.

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘Cafatex Corp.’’) aka.

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘CAFATEX CORP.’’) aka.

Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex), aka.

Cafatex, aka.

Cafatex Vietnam, aka.

Xi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat Kau Cantho, aka.

Cas, aka. 1.52 

Cas Branch, aka.

Cafatex Saigon, aka.

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka.

Cafatex Corporation, aka.

Taydo Seafood Enterprise aka.

Cafatex Corp. aka.

Cafatex Corporation.

Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) aka. 1.52 

Camranh Seafoods.

Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) aka.

Can Tho Agricultural Products aka. 1.52 

CATACO aka.

Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Imex Company.

Can Tho Import Export Fishery Limited Company (‘‘CAFISH’’). 1.52 

Coastal Fishery Development aka.

Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (‘‘Cofidec’’) aka.

Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) aka.

COFIDEC aka. 1.52 

Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation aka.

Coastal Fisheries Development Co. aka.

Coastal Fisheries Development Corp.

Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka.

Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) aka.

Cuulong Seapro aka.

Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) aka.

Cuu Long Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka.

Cuu Long Seaproducts Company aka. 1.52 

Cuu Long Seapro aka.

Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka.

Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro) aka.

Cuulong Seapro aka.

Cuulong Seaproduct Company.


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12065 

Exporter 

Simple 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) aka.

Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation aka.

Danang Seaproduct Import-Export Corporation aka.

Danang Seaproducts Import Export aka.

Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company aka. 1.52 

Seaprodex Danang aka.

Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company aka.

Tho Quang aka.

Tho Quang Co.

Grobest & I–Mei Industrial Vietnam, aka.

Grobest, aka.

Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. 1.52 

Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’).

Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’) aka.

Incomfish aka.

Investment Commerce Fisheries Corp., aka.

Incomfish Corp., aka.

Incomfish Corporation aka. 1.52 

Investment Commerce Fisheries aka.

Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation aka.

Incomfish Corporation.

Kim Anh Company Limited (‘‘Kim Anh’’). 1.52 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company aka .............................................................................................. 1.52 

Minh Hai Jostoco aka.

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’) aka.

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’) aka.

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company aka.

Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company aka.

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Co., aka.

Minh-Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company.

Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’) aka. 1.52 

Sea Minh Hai aka.

Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company aka.

Seaprodex Minh Hai aka.

Seaprodex Min Hai aka.

Seaprodex Minh Hai (Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods Processing Co.) aka.

Seaprodex Minh Hai Factory aka.

Seaprodex Minh Hai Factory No. 69 aka.

Seaprodex Minh Hai Workshop 1 aka.

Seaprodex Minh Hai-Factory No. 78 aka.

Workshop I Seaprodex Minh Hai.

Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (‘‘Seaprimex Co’’) aka.

Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’) aka.

Seaprimexco Vietnam aka.

Seaprimexco aka.

Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Seaprimexco’’) aka. 1.52 

Minh Hai Seaproducts Import Export Corporation aka.

Seaprimexco aka.

Minh Hai Seaproducts Co Ltd. (Seaprimexco) aka.

Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Seaprimexco Vietnam’’).

Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise aka.

Ngoc Sinh Seafoods aka.

Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprise aka.

Ngoc Sinh Fisheries aka.

Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprises aka. 1.52 

Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprises aka.

Ngoc Sinh aka.

Ngoc Sinh Seafood Processing Company aka.

Ngoc Sinh Seafoods (Private Enterprise).

Nhat Duc Co., Ltd.

Nhat Duc Co., Ltd. (‘‘Nhat Duc’’). 1.52 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) aka.

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company aka.

Nhatrang Fisheries Joint Stock Company aka.


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12066 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

Exporter 

Simple 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Nha Trang Fisco aka.

Nhatrang Fisco aka. 1.52 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) aka.

Nha Trang Fisheries, Joint Stock aka.

Nha Trang Fishereies Joint Stock Company (Nha Trang Fisco).

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd. aka. 1.52 

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import Export Company Limited aka.

Phu Cuong Jostoco Corp.

Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’) aka.

Western Seafood Processing and Exporting Factory (‘‘Western Seafood’’) aka. 1.52 

Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp. aka.

Phuong Nam Co. Ltd.

Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’) aka.

Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company aka.

Fimex VN aka. 1.52 

Sao Ta Seafood Factory aka.

Saota Seafood Factory.

Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’) aka.

Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Stapimex’’) aka.

Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company aka.

Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company aka. 1.52 

Stapimex aka.

Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company-(Stapimex) aka.

Stapimex Soc Trans Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company aka.

Stapmex.

Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation aka.

Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 aka.

Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory aka. 1.52 

My Son Seafoods Factory aka.

Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory Vietnam.

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company aka.

UT XI Aquatic Products Processing Company aka.

UT–XI Aquatic Products Processing Company aka.

UTXI aka.

UTXI Co. Ltd., aka. 1.52 

Khanh Loi Seafood Factory aka.

Hoang Phuong Seafood Factory aka.

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation (‘‘UTXICO’’) aka.

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation aka.

UTXICO.

Viet Foods Co., Ltd. aka. 1.52 

Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd.

Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. aka.

Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fish One’’) aka. 1.52 

Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (‘‘Vietnam Fish One Co. Ltd.’’).

Vietnam-wide Entity. 25.76 

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). As noted above, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value the FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. Interested 

parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the 

publicly available information to value 

each FOP. Additionally, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 

results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual 

information to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information submitted by an 

interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information. However, the Department 

notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits 

new information only insofar as it 

rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record. The 

Department generally cannot accept the 

submission of additional, previously 

absent-from-the-record alternative SV 

information pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1). See Glycine From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12067 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final 

Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 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 1117, 

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. Case briefs 

from interested parties may be 

submitted not later than 30 days of the 

date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs 

in this proceeding are requested to 

submit with each argument: (1) A 

statement of the issue; (2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c) and (d). 

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 issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by these 

reviews. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

we calculated exporter/importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rates for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent has reported 

reliable entered values, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, we will apply 

the assessment rate to the entered value 

of the importers’/customers’ entries 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 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 calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

As noted above, consistent with Ball 

Bearings, for the final results, for the 

companies receiving a separate rate that 

were not selected for individual review, 

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, excluding any zero 

and de minimis rates, and rates based 

entirely upon facts available, pursuant 

to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed 

Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese 

exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

for all Vietnamese exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the 

Vietnam-wide rate of 25.76 percent; and 

(4) for all non-Vietnamese exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

Vietnamese exporters that supplied that 

non-Vietnamese exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

• Agrex Saigon 

• APL Logistics 

• Aquatic Products Trading Company 

• CP Livestock 

• C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co., Ltd. 

• C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd 

• Camau Seafood Fty. 

• Ca Mau Frozen Seafood Processing 

Import Export Corporation, or Camau 

Seafood Factory No. 4 (‘‘CAMIMEX’’) 

and/or Camau Frozen Seafood 

Processing Import Export Corporation 

(‘‘CAMIMEX’’) 

• Ca Mau Seaproducts Exploitation 

and Service Corporation (‘‘SES’’) 

• Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export 

and Process Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘CADOVIMEX’’) 

• Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export 

and Process Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘Cadovimex-Vietnam’’) 

• Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export 

and Process Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘CADOVIMEX’’) and/or Cadovimex 

Seafood Import-Export and Process Joint 

Stock Company (‘‘Cadovimex-Vietnam) 

• Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing 

Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh 

Seafoods’’) 

• Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing 

Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh 

Seafoods’’) and/or Camranh Seafoods 

• Camranh Seafoods Processing 

Enterprise Pte. (also known as Cam 

Ranh Seafoods Processing Enteprise 

Pte., Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing 

Enterprise Company, Cam Ranh 

Seafoods, and Camranh Seafoods) and 

its branch factory, Branch of Camranh 

Seafoods Processing Enterprise Pte.— 

Quang Ninh Export Aquatic Products 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12068 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

Processing Factory (also known as 

Quang Ninh Seaproducts Factory) 

(collectively, ‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) 

• Can Tho Agricultural and Animal 

Product Import Export Company 

(‘‘CATACO’’) 

• Can Tho Agricultural Products 

• Can Tho Agricultural and animal 

Product Import Export Company 

(‘‘CATACO’’) and/or Can Tho 

Agricultural and Animal Products 

Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) 

• Can Tho Animal Fisheries Product 

Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex) 

• Can Tho Seafood Exports 

• Cautre Export Goods Processing 

Joint Stock Company 

• Coastal Fishery Development 

• D & N Foods Processing Danang 

• Daewoo Apparel Vietnam 

• Danang Seaproducts Import Export 

Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang) and/ 

or Danang Seaproducts Import Export 

Corporation (and its affiliates) 

(‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) 

• Danang Seaproducts Import Export 

Corporation (and its affiliate, Tho Quang 

Seafood Processing and Export 

Company) (collectively ‘‘Seaprodex 

Danang’’) 

• Foodstuff Factory Vietnam 

• Frozen Seafoods Fty 

• Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 

and/or Frozen Seafoods Fty 

• Gallant Ocean Vietnam 

• Grobest & I–Mei Industry Vietnam 

• Hai Thanh Food Company Ltd. 

• Hai Viet Corporation (‘‘HAVICO’’) 

• Hai Vuong Co., Ltd. 

• Hanoi Seaproducts Import Export 

Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Hanoi’’) 

• Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct Fty 

• Investment Commerce Fisheries 

Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’) and/or 

Investment Commerce Fisheries 

Corporation (‘‘INCOMFISH’’) 

• Kaier Furniture (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. 

• Khanh Loi Production and Trading 

Co. 

• Kien Gan Seaproduct Import and 

Export Company (‘‘KISIMEX’’) 

• Kien Long Seafoods 

• Kim Anh Co., Ltd. 

• Kim Do Wood Production 

• Lode Star Co., Ltd. 

• Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood 

Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘Minh 

Hai Jostoco’’) and/or Minh Hai Export 

Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock 

Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’) 

• Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods 

Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh 

Hai’’) and/or Minh Hai Joint-Stock 

Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Sea 

Minh Hai’’) 

• Minh Hai Sea Products Import 

Export Company (Seaprimex Co) 

• Minh Hai Joint Stock Processing Co. 

• Minh Phat Seafood and/or Minh 

Phat Seafood Co., Ltd. 

• Minh Phu Seafood Corporation (and 

its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. 

and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) 

(collectively ‘‘Minh Phu Group’’) 

• Minh Phu Seafood Export Import 

Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui 

Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat 

Seafood Co., Ltd.) and/or Minh Phu 

Seafood Export Import Corporation (and 

affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. 

and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) 

(collectively ‘‘Minh Phu Group’’) 

• Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) and/or 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Nha Trang FISCO’’) 

• Nha Trang Seaproduct Company 

(‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) 

• Nyd Co., Ltd. 

• Orange Fashion 

• Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) 

Ltd. 

• Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & 

Import-Export Co., Ltd. (aka Phu Cuong 

Jostoco Seafood Corporation, Phu Cuong 

Jostoco Corp. or Phu Cuong Seafood 

Processing Import-Export Company 

Limited) 

• Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and 

Import-Export Co., Ltd. and/or Phu 

Cuong Seafood Processing & ImportExport Co., Ltd. 

• Phu Thuan Corporation 

• Phuong Nam Company, Ltd. 

(‘‘Phuong Nam’’) 

• Phuong Nam Seafood Co., Ltd. 

• S.R.V. Freight Services Co., Ltd. 

• Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘Fimex VN’’) 

• Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘Fimex VN’’) and/or Sao Ta Foods Joint 

Stock Company (‘‘FIMEX’’) 

• Seaprodex Minh Hai Factory 

• Seaprodex Minh Hai Workshop 1 

• Sea Product 

• Soc Trang Aquatic Products and 

General Import Export Company 

(‘‘Stapimex’’) 

• Soc Trang Aquatic Products and 

General Import Export Company 

(‘‘Stapimex’’) and/or Soc Trang Aquatic 

Products and General Import-Export 

Company (‘‘STAPIMEX’’) 

• Song Huong ASC Import-Export 

Company Ltd. 

• Song Huong ASC Joint Stock 

Company 

• Sustainable Seafood 

• Tan Thanh Loi Frozen Food Co., 

Ltd. 

• Tecapro Co. (Tacbest Factory) 

• Thanh Hung Co., Ltd. 

• Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading 

Corporation and its separate factories 

Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32, 

Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory, and My 

Son Seafoods Factory (collectively 

‘‘Thuan Phuoc Corp.’’) 

• Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading 

Corporation and/or Thuan Phuoc 

Seafoods and Trading Corporation and/ 

or Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading 

Corporation (and its affiliates) 

• Tien Tien Garment Joint Stock 

Company 

• Tithi Co., Ltd. 

• Vien Thang Pte Co., Ltd. 

• Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. a/k/a 

Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fish One’’) 

• Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. 

• Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. 

(Vietnam Fish One) 

• Viet Nhan Company 

• Vietnam Northern Viking 

Technology Co., Ltd. 

• Vilfood Co 

• Vina Atm Co., Ltd. 

• Vinatex Danang 

• Vinh An Co., Ltd 

• Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd 

Appendix II 

• Bac Lieu Fisheries 

• Bac Lieu Fisheries Company 

• Bac Lieu Seaproducts Processing 

Factory 

• Cadovimex Seafood 

• Cadovimex Seafood Imp-Exp & 

Proc. Joint-Stock Co. 

• Camau Seafood, Factory No. 4 

• Cantho Imp Expo Fishery Ltd. 

• Danang Sea Products Import Export 

Corporation 

• Frozen Seafoods Factory 

• Hoang Phuong Seafood Co. 

• Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood 

Processing Joint-Stock Company (Minh 

Hai—Jostoco) 

• Minh Hai Joint Stock Processing Co. 

• Minh Hai Seaproducts Co Ltd. 

(Seaprimexco) 

• Minh Hai Seaproducts Import 

Export Company (Seaprimex Co) 

• Minh Phat Co Ltd. 

• Minh Qui Seafoods Co. Ltd. 

• Minh-Hai Export Frozen Seafood 

Processing Joint-Stock Company 

• Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

• Phuong Nam Co. 

• Soc Trang Aquatic Products and 

General Export Import Company 

• Soc Trang Aquatic Products and 

General Import Export Company—(Stapi 

Mex) 

• Soc Trang Aquatic Products and 

General Import Export Company 

(Stapimex) 

• Soc-Trang Aquatic Products and 

General Import Export Company 

(Stapmix) 

• Thuan Phuoc 

• Thuan Phuoc Seafood and Trading 

Company 

• UTXI Aquatic Products Processing 

Co 

[FR Doc. 2011–4977 Filed 3–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES