Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12025 

1This figure does not include the company for 

which the Department is rescinding the 

administrative review. 

Department’’) published the initiations 

of the 2009–2010 administrative review 

and the new shipper review (‘‘NSR’’) of 

Xinjiamei Furniture Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xinjiamei’’), respectively, of the 

antidumping duty order on folding 

metal tables and chairs from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocations in 

Part, 75 FR 44224 (July 28, 2010) and 

Folding Metal Tables and Chairs from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of New Shipper Review, 75 FR 

44767 (July 29, 2010). These reviews 

cover the period June 1, 2009, through 

May 31, 2010. The preliminary results 

of the administrative review are 

currently due no later than March 2, 

2011. 

On February 9, 2011, Xinjiamei 

agreed to waive the new shipper review 

time limits and agreed to the alignment 

of its NSR with the 2009–2010 

administrative review. See Letter from 

Xinjiamei, regarding Waiver of the Time 

Limits and Request for Alignment, dated 

February 9, 2011. Therefore, pursuant to 

section 351.214(j)(3) of the Department’s 

regulations, we have aligned the NSR of 

Xinjiamei with the 2009–2010 

administrative review. Accordingly, the 

preliminary results for the NSR are also 

due on March 2, 2011. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Review 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), the Department shall make a 

preliminary determination in an 

administrative review of an 

antidumping duty order within 245 

days after the last day of the anniversary 

month of the date of publication of the 

order. The Act further provides, 

however, that the Department may 

extend that 245-day period to 365 days 

if it determines it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the 

foregoing time period. 

The Department finds that it is not 

practicable to complete the preliminary 

results of the administrative review and 

new shipper review of folding metal 

tables and chairs from the PRC within 

this time limit. Specifically, additional 

time is needed to determine the 

appropriate surrogate country, and 

surrogate values with which to value 

factors of production. Moreover, 

additional time is needed in order that 

the Department can conduct mandatory 

verifications and issue verification 

reports prior to the preliminary results. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department 

is extending the time period for 

completion of the preliminary results of 

these reviews, which are currently due 

on March 2, 2011, by 90 days. 

Therefore, the preliminary results for 

the administrative and new shipper 

reviews are now due no later than May 

31, 2011. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(3)(A) 

and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: February 25, 2011. 

Gary Taverman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4940 Filed 3–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–840] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, Partial Rescission of Review, 

and Preliminary No Shipment 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from 

India with respect to 202 companies.1

The respondents which the Department 

selected for individual examination are 

Apex Exports (Apex) and Falcon Marine 

Exports Limited (Falcon). The 

respondents which were not selected for 

individual examination are listed in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of the Review’’ 

section of this notice. This is the fifth 

administrative review of this order. The 

period of review (POR) is February 1, 

2009, through January 31, 2010. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by Apex and Falcon have been 

made at below normal value (NV), and, 

therefore, are subject to antidumping 

duties. In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual examination, we 

have preliminarily determined a margin 

for those companies that were not 

individually examined. Finally, we are 

rescinding this review with respect to 

Devi Sea Foods Limited (Devi) because 

the order with respect to shrimp 

produced and exported by this company 

was revoked effective February 1, 2009. 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 4, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Henry Almond or Elizabeth Eastwood, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0049, or (202) 

482–3874, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 

2005) (Shrimp Order). On February 1, 

2010, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India for 

the period February 1, 2009, through 

January 31, 2010. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 75 

FR 5037 (Feb. 1, 2010). In response to 

timely requests from interested parties 

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

(2) to conduct an administrative review 

of the U.S. sales of shrimp by numerous 

Indian producers/exporters, the 

Department published a notice of 

initiation of administrative review for 

203 companies. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, 

and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

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

(Initiation Notice). 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department indicated that, in the event 

that we would limit the respondents 

selected for individual examination in 

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

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act), we would select mandatory 

respondents for individual examination 

based upon CBP entry data. See 

Initiation Notice, 75 FR at 17699. In 

April 2010, we received comments on 

the issue of respondent selection from 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12026 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

2The Liberty Group consists of the following 

companies: (1) Devi Marine Food Exports Private 

Limited; (2) Kader Exports Private Limited; (3) 

Kader Investment and Trading Company Private 

Limited; (4) Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd.; (5) 

Liberty Oil Mills Ltd.; (6) Premier Marine Products; 

and (7) Universal Cold Storage Private Limited. 

3The domestic processors consist of the 

American Shrimp Processors Association and the 

Louisiana Shrimp Association. 

4The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee. 

5 In this notice, we incorrectly stated that the 

Department would issue the preliminary results no 

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

Extension, 75 FR at 62100. 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

Devi, Falcon, the Liberty Group,2 the 

domestic processors,3 and the 

petitioner.4

In April and May 2010, we received 

statements from 20 companies that 

indicated that they had no shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. 

In July 2010, after considering the 

large number of potential exporters or 

producers involved in this 

administrative review, and the resources 

available to the Department, we 

determined that it was not practicable to 

examine all exporters/producers of 

subject merchandise for which a review 

was requested. See Memorandum to 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, from Elizabeth 

Eastwood, Senior Analyst, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations entitled, ‘‘2009–2010 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review,’’ 

dated July 9, 2010 (Respondent 

Selection Memo). As a result, pursuant 

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

determined that we could reasonably 

individually examine only the two 

largest producers/exporters accounting 

for the largest volume of shrimp from 

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

entry data, Devi and Falcon). 

Accordingly, we issued the 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

these companies on July 9, 2010. 

In July 2010, we published the final 

results of the 2008–2009 administrative 

review for this antidumping duty order, 

in which we revoked the Shrimp Order 

with respect to Devi’s sales of subject 

merchandise. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Partial 

Rescission of Review, and Notice of 

Revocation of Order in Part, 75 FR 

41813 (July 19, 2010) (2008–2009 Indian 

Shrimp Final). Accordingly, because 

Devi’s exports of shrimp were no longer 

subject to this administrative review, we 

selected the next largest Indian shrimp 

exporter/producer by volume, Apex, as 

a mandatory respondent. We issued the 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Apex in this same month. 

In August 2010, we received 

responses from Apex and Falcon to 

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

general information) of the 

questionnaire. In this same month, we 

also selected the United Kingdom and 

Japan as the appropriate third country 

comparison markets for Apex and 

Falcon, respectively. See the 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from the Team entitled, ‘‘2009–2010 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India—Selection of the 

Appropriate Third Country Market for 

Apex Exports,’’ dated August 19, 2010 

(Apex Third Country Market Memo), 

and the Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from the Team entitled, ‘‘2009–2010 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India—Selection of the 

Appropriate Third Country Market for 

Falcon Marine Exports Limited,’’ dated 

August 12, 2010 (Falcon Third Country 

Market Memo). 

From August to September 2010, we 

received responses to sections B and C 

(i.e., the sections covering comparison 

market and U.S. sales, respectively) of 

the questionnaire from Apex and 

Falcon, and section D (i.e., the section 

covering cost of production (COP) and 

constructed value (CV)) of the 

questionnaire from Falcon. Also in these 

months, we issued a supplemental 

questionnaire regarding section A to 

Falcon and we received Falcon’s 

response. 

On September 2, 2010, the petitioner 

requested that the Department initiate a 

sales-below-cost investigation related to 

Apex’s sales to the United Kingdom. 

On October 14, 2010, we initiated a 

sales-below-cost investigation for Apex. 

See the memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from the Team entitled, ‘‘The 

Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below 

the Cost of Production for Apex 

Exports,’’ dated October 14, 2010 (SalesBelow-Cost-Memo for Apex). On this 

same date, we required Apex to respond 

to section D of the questionnaire. Apex 

submitted its response in November 

2010. 

On October 20, 2010, the Department 

extended the preliminary results in the 

current review to no later than February 

28, 2011. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From India and 

Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limits for the Preliminary Results of the 

2009–2010 Administrative Reviews, 75 

FR 62099 (Oct. 20, 2010) (2009–2010 

Preliminary Extension).5 From October 

through December 2010, we issued 

supplemental sales and cost 

questionnaires to Apex and Falcon. 

Apex and Falcon responded to these 

questionnaires from November 2010 

through January 2011. 

In January 2011, the Department 

verified the sales data reported by Apex 

in India. In February 2011, Apex 

submitted updated sales information at 

the Department’s request. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,6

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12027 

7This company was listed in the Initiation Notice 

as Accelerated Freeze-Drying Company Ltd. 

8This company was listed in the Initiation Notice 

as G A Randerian Ltd. 

9This company was listed in the Initiation Notice 

as G.K S Business Associates Pvt. Ltd. 

10This company was listed in the Initiation 

Notice as L.G Seafoods. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell-on or peeled 

(HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled 

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

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; (3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

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

the end product constituting between 

four and ten percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and (5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

On July 19, 2010, the Department 

published its final results for the 

February 1, 2008, through January 31, 

2009, administrative review of the 

antidumping duty on shrimp from 

India. See 2008–2009 Indian Shrimp 

Final. In that review, we found that Devi 

met the requirements of revocation as 

described in 19 CFR 351.222(b) and, 

thus, we revoked the Shrimp Order with 

respect to subject merchandise 

produced and exported by Devi. As a 

result of Devi’s revocation in 2008–2009 

administrative review, we are 

rescinding this administrative review 

with respect to Devi because the 

merchandise produced and sold by Devi 

is not subject to the order on shrimp 

from India as of February 1, 2009. 

Because we have revoked the Shrimp 

Order with respect to subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

Devi, we have instructed CBP that 

entries of such merchandise that were 

suspended on or after February 1, 2009, 

should be liquidated without regard to 

antidumping duties and that all cash 

deposits collected should be returned 

with interest. 

Preliminary Determination of No 

Shipments 

As noted in the ‘‘Background’’ section 

above, 20 companies indicated that they 

had no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. The Department subsequently 

confirmed with CBP the no-shipment 

claim made by 19 of these companies. 

Because the evidence on the record 

indicates that these companies did not 

export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following 19 companies had no 

reviewable transactions during the POR: 

(1) Abad Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. 

(2) Accelerated Freeze Drying Company 

Ltd.7

(3) Baby Marine International 

(4) Baby Marine Sarass 

(5) Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd. 

(6) BMR Exports 

(7) Castlerock Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. 

(8) Coastal Corporation Ltd. 

(9) Diamond Seafoods Exports/Edhayam 

Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Kadalkanny 

Frozen Foods/Theva & Company 

(10) G A Randerian (P) Limited 8

(11) GKS Business Associates (P) Ltd.9

(12) Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exports 

India Pvt. Ltd. 

(13) L. G. Sea Foods 10

(14) Lewis Natural Foods Ltd. 

(15) Libran Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd. 

(16) Shimpo Exports 

(17) SSF Limited 

(18) Sterling Foods 

(19) Unitriveni Overseas 

Since the implementation of the 1997 

regulations, our practice concerning noshipment respondents has been to 

rescind the administrative review if the 

respondent certifies that it had no 

shipments and we have confirmed 

through our examination of CBP data 

that there were no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 

1997). As a result, in such 

circumstances, we normally instruct 

CBP to liquidate any entries from the 

no-shipment company at the deposit 

rate in effect on the date of entry. 

In our May 6, 2003, ‘‘automatic 

assessment’’ clarification, we explained 

that, where respondents in an 

administrative review demonstrate that 

they had no knowledge of sales through 

resellers to the United States, we would 

instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 

the all-others rate applicable to the 

proceeding. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). 

Because ‘‘as entered’’ liquidation 

instructions do not alleviate the 

concerns which the May 2003 

clarification was intended to address, 

we find it appropriate in this case to 

instruct CBP to liquidate any existing 

entries of merchandise produced by the 

22 companies listed above, and 

exported by other parties at the allothers rate, should we continue to find 

that these companies had no shipments 

of subject merchandise during the POR 

in our final results. See, e.g., Magnesium 

Metal From the Russian Federation: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in 

Magnesium Metal From the Russian 

Federation: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

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

addition, the Department finds that it is 

more consistent with the May 2003 

clarification not to rescind the review in 

part in these circumstances but, rather, 

to complete the review with respect to 

these 22 companies and issue 

appropriate instructions to CBP based 

on the final results of the review. See 

the ‘‘Assessment Rates’’ section of this 

notice below. 

With respect to the remaining 

company which certified that it had no 

shipments during the POR, Triveni 

Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. (Triveni), we were 

unable to confirm this company’s noshipment status with CBP. Accordingly, 

in February 2011, we requested that 

Triveni clarify its no-shipment 

certification. Because this information 

was not received in time for use in the 

preliminary results, we are unable to 

prelminarily conclude that Triveni had 

no reviewable transactions in this 

administrative review. However, in the 

event Triveni provides additional 

information supporting its no shipment 

claim in response to our request, we 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12028 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

11Where NV is based on CV, we determine the 

NV LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which 

we derive selling expenses, general and 

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

where possible. 

expect to consider this information in 

the final results. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of shrimp 

from India to the United States were 

made at less than NV, we compared the 

export price (EP) to the NV, as described 

in the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal 

Value’’ sections of this notice. 

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

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

Falcon, we compared the EPs of 

individual U.S. transactions to the 

weighted-average NV of the foreign like 

product in the appropriate 

corresponding calendar month where 

there were sales made in the ordinary 

course of trade, as discussed in the ‘‘Cost 

of Production Analysis’’ section below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16)(A) 

of the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Apex and Falcon, covered 

by the description in the ‘‘Scope of the 

Order’’ section, above, to be foreign like 

products for purposes of determining 

appropriate product comparisons to 

U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

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

shrimp to sales of shrimp made in the 

third country market within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

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

two months after the month of the last 

U.S. sale. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the comparison market 

made in the ordinary course of trade to 

compare to U.S. sales, according to 

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

compared U.S. sales to sales of the most 

similar foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making the 

product comparisons, we matched 

foreign like products based on the 

physical characteristics reported by 

Apex and Falcon in the following order: 

cooked form, head status, count size, 

organic certification, shell status, vein 

status, tail status, other shrimp 

preparation, frozen form, flavoring, 

container weight, presentation, species, 

and preservative. Where there were no 

sales of identical or similar 

merchandise, we made product 

comparisons using CV, as discussed in 

the ‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value’’ section below. 

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

Export Price 

For all U.S. sales made by Apex and 

Falcon, we used EP methodology, in 

accordance with section 772(a) of the 

Act, because the subject merchandise 

was sold by the producer/exporter 

outside of the United States directly to 

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States prior to importation and 

constructed export price (CEP) 

methodology was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts of record. 

A. Apex 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight 

expenses, export inspection agency 

(EIA) fees, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, various foreign 

miscellaneous shipment charges, 

international freight expenses, terminal 

handling charges, marine insurance 

expenses, U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees), U.S. 

brokerage and handling expenses, and 

U.S. inland freight expenses, where 

appropriate, in accordance with section 

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

B. Falcon 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

discounts, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c). We also made deductions 

from the starting price for cold storage 

expenses, loading and unloading 

expenses, trailer hire expenses, foreign 

inland freight expenses, port charges, 

export survey charges, terminal 

handling charges, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, international freight 

expenses, marine insurance expenses, 

U.S. customs duties (including harbor 

maintenance fees and merchandise 

processing fees), and U.S. brokerage and 

handling expenses, where appropriate, 

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

of the Act. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and Selection 

of Comparison Markets 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of 

the Act. 

We determined that the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product for each of the 

respondents was insufficient to permit a 

proper comparison with U.S. sales of 

the subject merchandise. For Apex and 

Falcon, we selected the United Kingdom 

and Japan, respectively, as the 

comparison markets because, among 

other things, these companies’ sales of 

foreign like product in those countries 

were the most similar to the subject 

merchandise. For further discussion, see 

the Apex Third Country Market Memo 

and the Falcon Third Country Market 

Memo. Therefore, as the basis for 

comparison market sales, we used sales 

to the United Kingdom and Japan, 

respectively, for Apex and Falcon, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.404. 

B. Level of Trade 

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

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as 

the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 

different LOTs if they are made at 

different marketing stages (or their 

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

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id; see also Certain Orange 

Juice From Brazil: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Notice of Intent Not To 

Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in 

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

2010), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 

(OJ from Brazil). In order to determine 

whether the comparison market sales 

were at different stages in the marketing 

process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed 

the distribution system in each market 

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

including selling functions, class of 

customer (customer category), and the 

level of selling expenses for each type 

of sale. 

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

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 

on either home market or third country 

prices),11 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 

we consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

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

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

16 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12029 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it possible, we make an LOT 

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

the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if 

the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage 

of distribution than the LOT of the CEP 

and there is no basis for determining 

whether the difference in LOTs between 

NV and CEP affects price comparability 

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

the Department shall grant a CEP offset, 

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

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

at 51001. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from both 

respondents regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

foreign market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed by each respondent for each 

channel of distribution. Companyspecific LOT findings are summarized 

below. 

1. Apex 

Apex reported that it made EP sales 

in the U.S. market to trading companies. 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for U.S. sales and found that 

Apex performed the following selling 

functions: customer contact and price 

negotiation; order processing; arranging 

for freight and the provision of customs 

clearance/brokerage services (in India 

and the United States); cold storage and 

inventory maintenance; qualityassurance-related activities; and 

banking-related activities. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

four selling function categories for 

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

freight and delivery; (3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and (4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, based on the selling 

function categories, we find that Apex 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing for U.S. 

sales. Because all sales in the United 

States are made through a single 

distribution channel (i.e., direct sales to 

unaffiliated customers) and the selling 

activities to Apex’s customers did not 

vary within this channel, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to the third country 

market, Apex reported that it made sales 

to trading companies and that all selling 

functions were performed at the same 

levels of intensity as in the U.S. market. 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for third country sales, and 

found that Apex performed the 

following selling functions: customer 

contact and price negotiation; order 

processing; arranging for freight and the 

provision of customs clearance/ 

brokerage services (in India); cold 

storage and inventory maintenance; 

quality-assurance-related activities; and 

banking-related activities. Accordingly, 

based on these selling functions noted 

above, we find that Apex performed 

sales and marketing, freight and 

delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing for all 

third country sales. Because all third 

country sales are made through a single 

distribution channel and the selling 

activities to Apex’s customers did not 

vary within this channel, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the third country market for 

Apex. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the third country market LOT and found 

that the selling functions performed for 

U.S. and third country market 

customers do not differ, as Apex 

performed the same selling functions at 

the same relative level of intensity in 

both markets. Therefore, we determine 

that sales to the U.S. and third country 

markets during the POR were made at 

the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT 

adjustment is warranted. 

2. Falcon 

Falcon reported that it made EP sales 

in the U.S. market to trading companies. 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for U.S. sales and found that 

Falcon performed the following selling 

functions: customer contact and price 

negotiation; order processing; arranging 

for freight and the provision of customs 

clearance/brokerage services (in India 

and the United States); cold storage and 

inventory maintenance; qualityassurance-related activities; and 

banking-related activities. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

four selling function categories for 

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

freight and delivery; (3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and (4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, based on the selling 

function categories, we find that Falcon 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing for U.S. 

sales. Because all sales in the United 

States are made through a single 

distribution channel (i.e., direct sales to 

unaffiliated customers) and the selling 

activities to Falcon’s customers did not 

vary within this channel, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to the third country 

market, Falcon reported that it made 

sales to trading companies and that all 

selling functions were performed at the 

same levels of intensity as in the U.S. 

market. We examined the selling 

activities performed for third country 

sales, and found that Falcon performed 

the following selling functions: 

customer contact and price negotiation; 

order processing; arranging for freight 

and the provision of customs clearance/ 

brokerage services (in India); cold 

storage and inventory maintenance; 

quality-assurance-related activities; and 

banking-related activities. Accordingly, 

based on these selling functions noted 

above, we find that Falcon performed 

sales and marketing, freight and 

delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing for all 

third country sales. Because all third 

country sales are made through a single 

distribution channel and the selling 

activities to Falcon’s customers did not 

vary within this channel, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the third country market for 

Falcon. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the third country market LOT and found 

that the selling functions performed for 

U.S. and third country market 

customers do not differ, as Falcon 

performed the same selling functions at 

the same relative level of intensity in 

both markets. Therefore, we determine 

that sales to the U.S. and third country 

markets during the POR were made at 

the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT 

adjustment is warranted. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

On September 2, 2010, the petitioner 

alleged that Apex made sales to the 

United Kingdom that were below the 

COP. Based on our analysis of the 

petitioner’s allegation, we found that 

there were reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that Apex’s sales of 

shrimp in the United Kingdom were 

made at prices below its COP. 

Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) 

of the Act, we initiated a sales-belowcost investigation to determine whether 

Apex’s sales were made at prices below 

its COP. See Sales-Below-Cost-Memo for 

Apex. 

In addition, we found that Falcon 

made sales in the same comparison 

market (i.e., Japan) below the COP in the 

most recently completed segment of this 

proceeding, as of the date of initiation 

of this review, and such sales were 

disregarded. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 33409, 33410 (July 13, 

2009). Thus, in accordance with section 

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

preliminarily find that there are 

reasonable grounds to believe or suspect 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12030 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

that Falcon made sales in the third 

country market at prices below the cost 

of producing the merchandise during 

the current POR. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the 

respondents’ COPs based on the sum of 

their costs of materials and conversion 

for the foreign like product, plus 

amounts for G&A expenses and interest 

expenses (see ‘‘Test of Comparison 

Market Sales Prices’’ section, below, for 

treatment of third country selling 

expenses). 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by each respondent in its 

most recently submitted cost database 

for the COP calculation, except for the 

following instances. 

a. Apex: 

i. We have revised Apex’s G&A 

expenses to include imputed salary 

expenses for its managing partner. 

ii. We have revised Apex’s financial 

expenses to exclude Apex’s claimed 

interest income received on 

antidumping duty deposit refunds 

because the asset generating the income 

was not short-term working capital. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the memorandum from 

Kristin Case, Accountant, to Neal M. 

Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 

entitled, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Apex Exports,’’ dated February 

28, 2011. 

b. Falcon: 

i. We adjusted Falcon’s reported G&A 

expenses to include property taxes. 

ii. We have revised Falcon’s financial 

expenses to exclude Falcon’s claimed 

interest income received on 

antidumping duty deposit refunds 

because the asset generating the income 

was not short-term working capital. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the memorandum from 

Ji Young Oh, Accountant, to Neal M. 

Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 

entitled, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Falcon Marine Exports 

Limited,’’ dated February 28, 2011. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the comparison market 

sales prices of the foreign like product, 

as required under section 773(b) of the 

Act, in order to determine whether the 

sale prices were below the COP. For 

purposes of this comparison, we used 

COP exclusive of selling and packing 

expenses. The prices were exclusive of 

any applicable movement charges, 

discounts, direct and indirect selling 

expenses, and packing expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

third country sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

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

Act: (1) Whether, within an extended 

period of time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities; and (2) whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time in 

the normal course of trade. In 

accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) 

and (C) of the Act, where less than 20 

percent of the respondent’s third 

country sales of a given product are at 

prices less than the COP, we do not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

product because we determine that in 

such instances the below-cost sales were 

not made within an extended period of 

time and in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ 

Where 20 percent or more of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product are 

at prices less than the COP, we 

disregard the below-cost sales when: (1) 

They were made within an extended 

period of time in ‘‘substantial 

quantities,’’ in accordance with sections 

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

based on our comparison of prices to the 

weighted-average COPs for the POR, 

they were at prices which would not 

permit the recovery of all costs within 

a reasonable period of time, in 

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

the Act. 

We found that, for certain products, 

more than 20 percent of Apex and 

Falcon’s third country sales were at 

prices less than the COP and, in 

addition, such sales did not provide for 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We therefore excluded 

these sales and used the remaining sales 

as the basis for determining NV, in 

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

Act. 

For those U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise for which there were no 

comparable third country sales in the 

ordinary course of trade, we compared 

EP to CV in accordance with section 

773(a)(4) of the Act. See ‘‘Calculation of 

Normal Value Based on Constructed 

Value’’ section below. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

1. Apex 

For Apex, we calculated NV based on 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers in United Kingdom. We made 

adjustments to the starting price, where 

appropriate, for discounts, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 

also made deductions for foreign inland 

freight expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, various foreign 

miscellaneous shipment charges and 

international freight expenses 

(including terminal handling charges), 

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

In addition, we made adjustments 

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

and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 

circumstances of sale for direct selling 

expenses (including bank charges, 

Export Credit Guarantee Corporation 

(ECGC) fees, EIA fees, imputed credit 

expenses, and other direct selling 

expenses), and commissions. We 

recalculated Apex’s imputed credit 

expenses for two U.S. sales based upon 

revised dates of payment. Specifically, 

because Apex was unable to tie receipt 

of payment for two invoices to its 

accounting system, we have 

preliminarily treated these two sales as 

unpaid. In accordance with the 

Department’s practice, we have set the 

payment date for these sales equal to the 

last day Apex could submit new factual 

information to the Department (i.e., 

January 21, 2011, the last day of 

verification). See, e.g., Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

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

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5. For 

further discussion, see the 

Memorandum to the File, from Henry 

Almond, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD 

Operations, entitled, ‘‘Calculation 

Adjustments for Apex Exports for the 

Preliminary Results in the 2009–2010 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,’’ 

dated February 28, 2011. Because 

commissions were paid only in the 

comparison market, we made an 

upward adjustment to NV for the lesser 

of: (1) The amount of commission paid 

in the comparison market; or (2) the 

amount of indirect selling expenses 

(including inventory carrying costs) 

incurred in the U.S. market. See 19 CFR 

351.410(e). 

We made adjustments for differences 

in costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.411. We also deducted third 

country packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs, in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the 

Act. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12031 

12This rate is based on the average of the margins 

calculated for those companies selected for 

individual review, weighted by each company’s 

publicly-ranged quantity of reported U.S. 

transactions. Because we cannot apply our normal 

methodology of calculating a weighted-average 

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

best proxy of the actual weighted-average margin 

determined for the mandatory respondents. See Ball 

Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances 

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

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

France). 

2. Falcon 

We based NV for Falcon on prices to 

unaffiliated customers in Japan. We 

made adjustments, where appropriate, 

to the starting price for discounts, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 

also made deductions, where 

appropriate, from the starting price for 

cold storage expenses, loading and 

unloading expenses, trailer hire 

expenses, foreign inland freight 

expenses, port charges, export survey 

charges, terminal and handling charges, 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses, and international freight 

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

of the Act. 

In addition, we made adjustments 

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

and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 

circumstances of sale for commissions, 

imputed credit expenses, bank fees, EIA 

fees, ECGC premiums, outside 

inspection/lab expenses, letter of credit 

amendment charges, and other 

miscellaneous selling expenses. Finally, 

where commissions were granted in the 

U.S. market but not in the comparison 

market, we made a downward 

adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) 

The amount of commission paid in the 

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

indirect selling expenses (including 

inventory carrying costs) incurred in the 

comparison market. See 19 CFR 

351.410(e). If commissions were granted 

in the comparison market but not in the 

U.S. market, we made an upward 

adjustment to NV following the same 

methodology. Id. 

We made adjustments for differences 

in costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.411. We also deducted third 

country packing costs and added U.S. 

packing costs, in accordance with 

sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

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

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, for those 

shrimp products for which we could not 

determine the NV based on comparison 

market sales because, as noted in the 

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

all sales of the comparable products 

failed the COP test, we based NV on CV. 

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

Act provide that CV shall be based on 

the sum of the cost of materials and 

fabrication for the imported 

merchandise, plus amounts for selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

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

For each respondent, we calculated the 

cost of materials and fabrication based 

on the methodology described in the 

‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ section, 

above. We based SG&A and profit for 

each respondent on the actual amounts 

incurred and realized by it in 

connection with the production and sale 

of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the comparison market, 

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

of the Act. 

We made adjustments to CV for 

differences in circumstances of sale, in 

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

and (a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410. For comparisons to EP, we 

made circumstance-of-sale adjustments 

by deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred on comparison market sales 

from, and adding U.S. direct selling 

expenses to, CV. See 19 CFR 351.410(c). 

We also made an adjustment for Falcon, 

when applicable, for comparison market 

indirect selling expenses to offset U.S. 

commissions in EP comparisons. See 19 

CFR 351.410(e). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars for all spot transactions by 

Apex and Falcon, in accordance with 

section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.415, based on the exchange rates in 

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

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. In 

addition, both Apex and Falcon 

reported that they purchased forward 

exchange contracts which were used to 

convert their sales prices into home 

market currency. Under 19 CFR 

351.415(b), if a currency transaction on 

forward markets is directly linked to an 

export sale under consideration, the 

Department is directed to use the 

exchange rate specified with respect to 

such currency in the forward sale 

agreement to convert the foreign 

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

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India, 

69 FR 76916 (Dec. 23, 2004) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6; see also 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

India: Preliminary Results and 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 9991, 9998 (Mar. 9, 

2010), unchanged in 2008–2009 Indian 

Shrimp Final. Therefore, for Apex and 

Falcon we used the reported forward 

exchange rates for currency conversions 

where applicable. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

February 1, 2009, through January 31, 

2010, as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Apex Exports ................................ 2.31 

Falcon Marine Exports Limited ..... 1.36 

Review-Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies:12

Abad Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. ............... * 

Accelerated Freeze Drying Company Ltd. ................................... * 

Adani Exports Ltd ......................... 1.69 

Adilakshmi Enterprises ................. 1.69 

Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. ...... 1.69 

Allansons Ltd. ............................... 1.69 

AMI Enterprises ............................ 1.69 

Amulya Sea Foods ....................... 1.69 

Anand Aqua Exports .................... 1.69 

Ananda Aqua Applications/ 

Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Limited/Ananda Foods .................... 1.69 

Andaman Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. ....... 1.69 

Angelique Intl ................................ 1.69 

Anjaneya Seafoods ...................... 1.69 

Anjani Marine Traders .................. 1.69 

Asvini Exports ............................... 1.69 

Asvini Feeds Limited .................... 1.69 

Asvini Fisheries Private Limited ... 1.69 

Avanti Feeds Limited .................... 1.69 

Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited ............................................ 1.69 

Baby Marine Exports .................... 1.69 

Baby Marine International ............ * 

Baby Marine Sarass ..................... * 

Bhatsons Aquatic Products .......... 1.69 

Bhavani Seafoods ........................ 1.69 

Bhisti Exports ................................ 1.69 

Bijaya Marine Products ................ 1.69 

Blue Water Foods & Exports P. 

Ltd. ............................................ * 

Bluefin Enterprises ....................... 1.69 

Bluepark Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. ......... 1.69 

Britto Exports ................................ 1.69 

BMR Exports ................................ * 

C P Aquaculture (India) Ltd. ......... 1.69 

Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. .......... 1.69 

Capithan Exporting Co. ................ 1.69 

Castlerock Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. ...... * 

Chemmeens (Regd) ..................... 1.69 

Cherukattu Industries (Marine 

Div.) ........................................... 1.69 

Choice Canning Company ........... 1.69 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
12032 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Choice Trading Corporation Private Limited ............................... 1.69 

Coastal Corporation Ltd. .............. * 

Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. 

Ltd. ............................................ 1.69 

Coreline Exports ........................... 1.69 

Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. ... 1.69 

Damco India Private ..................... 1.69 

Devi Fisheries Limited .................. 1.69 

Devi Marine Food Exports Private 

Ltd./Kader Exports Private Limited/Kader Investment and 

Trading Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. 

Ltd./Liberty Oil Mills Ltd./Premier Marine Products/Universal 

Cold Storage Private Limited .... 1.69 

Dhanamjaya Impex P. Ltd. ........... 1.69 

Diamond Seafoods Exports/ 

Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. 

Ltd./Kadalkanny Frozen Foods/ 

Theva & Company .................... * 

Digha Seafood Exports ................ 1.69 

Esmario Export Enterprises .......... 1.69 

Exporter Coreline Exports ............ 1.69 

Five Star Marine Exports Private 

Limited ....................................... 1.69 

Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. .... 1.69 

Frigerio Conserva Allana Limited 1.69 

Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd. ............ 1.69 

G A Randerian (P) Limited ........... * 

Gadre Marine Exports .................. 1.69 

Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd. .. 1.69 

Gayatri Sea Foods and Feeds 

Private Ltd. ................................ 1.69 

Gayatri Seafoods .......................... 1.69 

Geo Aquatic Products (P) Ltd. ..... 1.69 

Geo Seafoods ............................... 1.69 

GKS Business Associates (P) Ltd. * 

Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd. ....... 1.69 

GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd. .................. 1.69 

Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 

Harmony Spices Pvt. Ltd. ............. 1.69 

HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd. 1.69 

Hindustan Lever, Ltd. ................... 1.69 

Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage ........ 1.69 

Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd. .............. 1.69 

Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at APM—Mafco Yard, 

Sector—18, Vashi, Navi, 

Mumbai—400 705, India) ......... 1.69 

Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at Jawar Naka, 

Porbandar, Gujarat, 360 575, 

India) ......................................... 1.69 

IFB Agro Industries Ltd. ............... 1.69 

Indian Aquatic Products ............... 1.69 

Indo Aquatics ................................ 1.69 

Innovative Foods Limited ............. 1.69 

International Freezefish Exports ... 1.69 

Interseas ....................................... 1.69 

ITC Limited, International Business ........................................... 1.69 

ITC Ltd. ......................................... 1.69 

Jagadeesh Marine Exports ........... 1.69 

Jaya Satya Marine Exports .......... 1.69 

Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. 

Ltd. ............................................ 1.69 

Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private 

Limited ....................................... 1.69 

Jinny Marine Traders .................... 1.69 

Jiya Packagings ............................ 1.69 

KNR Marine Exports ..................... 1.69 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

K R M Marine Exports Ltd. ........... 1.69 

K V Marine Exports ...................... 1.69 

Kalyan Aqua & Marine Exports 

India Pvt. Ltd. ............................ * 

Kalyanee Marine ........................... 1.69 

Kay Kay Exports ........................... 1.69 

Kings Marine Products ................. 1.69 

Koluthara Exports Ltd. .................. 1.69 

Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. 

Ltd. ............................................ 1.69 

L. G. Sea Foods ........................... * 

Landauer Ltd. C O Falcon Marine 

Exports Ltd. ............................... 1.69 

Lewis Natural Foods Ltd. ............. * 

Libran Cold Storages Pvt. Ltd. ..... * 

Lotus Sea Farms .......................... 1.69 

Lourde Exports ............................. 1.69 

Magnum Estates Limited .............. 1.69 

Magnum Export ............................ 1.69 

Magnum Sea Foods Limited ........ 1.69 

Malabar Arabian Fisheries ........... 1.69 

Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd. .............. 1.69 

Mangala Marine Exim India Private Ltd. .................................... 1.69 

Mangala Sea Products ................. 1.69 

Marine Exports ............................. 1.69 

Meenaxi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. .......... 1.69 

MSC Marine Exporters ................. 1.69 

MSRDR Exports ........................... 1.69 

MTR Foods ................................... 1.69 

N.C. John & Sons (P) Ltd ............ 1.69 

Naga Hanuman Fish Packers ...... 1.69 

Naik Frozen Foods ....................... 1.69 

Naik Seafoods Ltd. ....................... 1.69 

Navayuga Exports Ltd. ................. 1.69 

Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited ........ 1.69 

NGR Aqua International ............... 1.69 

Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. .............. 1.69 

Nine Up Frozen Foods ................. 1.69 

Overseas Marine Export ............... 1.69 

Penver Products (P) Ltd. .............. 1.69 

Pijikay International Exports P 

Ltd. ............................................ 1.69 

Pisces Seafood International ........ 1.69 

Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd. .. 1.69 

R V R Marine Products Private 

Limited ....................................... 1.69 

Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. .................. 1.69 

Raju Exports ................................. 1.69 

Ram’s Assorted Cold Storage Ltd. 1.69 

Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage ......... 1.69 

Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd. .......... 1.69 

Razban Seafoods Ltd. .................. 1.69 

RBT Exports ................................. 1.69 

RDR Exports ................................. 1.69 

Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd. ............... 1.69 

Rohi Marine Private Ltd. ............... 1.69 

Royal Cold Storage India P Ltd. .. 1.69 

S & S Seafoods ............................ 1.69 

S. A. Exports ................................ 1.69 

S Chanchala Combines ................ 1.69 

Safa Enterprises ........................... 1.69 

Sagar Foods ................................. 1.69 

Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd. .. 1.69 

Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. ...... 1.69 

SAI Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. ........ 1.69 

SAI Sea Foods ............................. 1.69 

Sanchita Marine Products P Ltd .. 1.69 

Sandhya Aqua Exports ................. 1.69 

Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd. .. 1.69 

Sandhya Marines Limited ............. 1.69 

Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd. .... 1.69 

Satya Seafoods Private Limited ... 1.69 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Sawant Food Products ................. 1.69 

Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ......... 1.69 

Selvam Exports Private Limited ... 1.69 

Sharat Industries Ltd. ................... 1.69 

Shimpo Exports ............................ * 

Shippers Exports .......................... 1.69 

Shroff Processed Food & Cold 

Storage P Ltd. ........................... 1.69 

Silver Seafood .............................. 1.69 

Sita Marine Exports ...................... 1.69 

SLS Exports Pvt. Ltd. ................... 1.69 

Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd. ................ 1.69 

Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports .......................................... 1.69 

Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage .............. 1.69 

Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd. 1.69 

Sri Satya Marine Exports ............. 1.69 

Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine 

Foods Pvt. Ltd. .......................... 1.69 

Srikanth International .................... 1.69 

Srikanth International Agri Exports 

& Imports ................................... 1.69 

SSF Limited .................................. * 

Star Agro Marine Exports ............. 1.69 

Star Agro Marine Exports Private 

Limited ....................................... 1.69 

Sterling Foods .............................. * 

Sun Bio-Technology Ltd. .............. 1.69 

Supreme Exports .......................... 1.69 

Surya Marine Exports ................... 1.69 

Suryamitra Exim (P) Ltd. .............. 1.69 

Suvarna Rekha Exports Private 

Limited ....................................... 1.69 

Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. .... 1.69 

TBR Exports Pvt Ltd. .................... 1.69 

Teekay Marine P. Ltd. .................. 1.69 

Tejaswani Enterprises .................. 1.69 

The Waterbase Ltd. ...................... 1.69 

Triveni Fisheries P Ltd. ................ 1.69 

Unitriveni Overseas ...................... * 

Usha Seafoods ............................. 1.69 

V.S Exim Pvt Ltd. ......................... 1.69 

Vaibhav Sea Foods ...................... 1.69 

Veejay Impex ................................ 1.69 

Veeteejay Exim Pvt., Ltd. ............. 1.69 

Victoria Marine & Agro Exports 

Ltd. ............................................ 1.69 

Vijayalaxmi Seafoods ................... 1.69 

Vinner Marine ............................... 1.69 

Vishal Exports ............................... 1.69 

Wellcome Fisheries Limited ......... 1.69 

West Coast Frozen Foods Private 

Limited ....................................... 1.69 

This rate is based on the average of the 

margins calculated for those companies selected for individual review, weighted by each 

company’s publicly-ranged quantity of reported 

U.S. transactions. Because we cannot apply 

our normal methodology of calculating a 

weighted-average margin due to requests to 

protect business-proprietary information, we 

find this rate to be the best proxy of the actual 

weighted-average margin determined for the 

mandatory respondents. See Ball Bearings 

and Parts Thereof From France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an 

Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (Sept. 1, 

2010) (Bearings from France). 

\*

\ No shipments or sales subject to this 

review. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2011 / Notices 12033 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c), interested parties may 

submit case briefs not later than the 

later of 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice or one week 

after the issuance of the cost verification 

report for Apex. Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed not later than five days after the 

date for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are encouraged to submit 

with each argument: (1) A statement of 

the issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

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

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1870, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

(1) The party’s name, address and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

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

discussed. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. Id. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of the issues 

raised in any written briefs, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

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

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). The Department will 

issue appropriate appraisement 

instructions for the companies subject to 

this review directly to CBP 15 days after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

For Apex and Falcon, we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

duty assessment rates based on the ratio 

of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of the sales. 

See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

For the companies which were not 

selected for individual review, we will 

calculate an assessment rate based on 

the average of the margins calculated for 

those companies selected for individual 

review, weighted by each company’s 

publicly-ranged quantity of reported 

U.S. transactions. In situations where 

we cannot apply our normal 

methodology of calculating a weightedaverage margin due to requests to 

protect business-proprietary information 

but where use of a simple average does 

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

available data, normally we will use the 

publicly available figures as a matter of 

practice. See Bearings from France, 75 

FR at 53663. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. Pursuant to 

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

CBP to liquidate without regard to 

antidumping duties any entries for 

which the assessment rate is de 

minimis. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. See 

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

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in the final results of this 

review for which the reviewed 

companies did not know that the 

merchandise they sold to the 

intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading 

company, or exporter) was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all-others rate 

if there is no rate for the intermediary 

involved in the transaction. See 

Assessment Policy Notice for a full 

discussion of this clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

The cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

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

deposit rate will be zero; (2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

if the exporter is not a firm covered in 

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

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 10.17 

percent, the all-others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Shrimp Order, 70 FR at 5148. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

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

and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 28, 2011. 

Paul Piquado, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–4974 Filed 3–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–822] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Preliminary No Shipment 

Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES