[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12033-12044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4978]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 12034]]

frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from Thailand with respect to 152 
companies. The respondents which the Department selected for individual 
examination are Marine Gold Products Co., Ltd. (MRG) and Pakfood Public 
Company Limited and its affiliated subsidiaries (collectively, 
``Pakfood'').\1\ The respondents which were not selected for individual 
examination are listed in the ``Preliminary Results of Review'' section 
of this notice. This is the fifth administrative review of this order. 
The period of review (POR) is February 1, 2009, through January 31, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These subsidiaries are: Okeanos Co., Ltd., Okeanos Food Co., 
Ltd., Takzin Samut Co., Ltd., Chaophraya Cold Storage Co., Ltd., and 
Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company Ltd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales made by MRG and Pakfood have 
been made at below normal value (NV) and, therefore, are subject to 
antidumping duties. In addition, based on the preliminary results for 
the respondents selected for individual examination, we have 
preliminarily determined a margin for those companies that were not 
individually examined.
    If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results.

DATES: Effective Date: March 4, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blaine Wiltse or Holly Phelps, AD/CVD 
Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
6345 or (202) 482-0656, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
Thailand. See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 1, 2005) (Shrimp Order). On 
February 1, 2010, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand 
for the period February 1, 2009, through January 31, 2010. See 
Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 
Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 75 FR 5037 
(Feb. 1, 2010). In response to timely requests from interested parties 
pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and (2) to conduct an administrative 
review of the U.S. sales of shrimp by numerous Thai producers/
exporters, the Department published a notice of initiation of 
administrative review for 153 companies. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Brazil, India, and Thailand: Notice of Initiation of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 17693 (Apr. 7, 2010) 
(Initiation Notice).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the Initiation Notice, the Department separately listed 
Bright Sea Co., Ltd. in the list of companies under review. However, 
in the original investigation, the Department found that The Union 
Frozen Products Co., Ltd. and Bright Sea Co., Ltd. comprised a 
single entity. See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Negative Final Determination of Critical 
Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (Dec. 23, 2004). Therefore, we have treated 
Bright Sea Co., Ltd. and The Union Frozen Products, Co., Ltd. as a 
single entity for purposes of the preliminary results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department indicated that, in the 
event that we would limit the respondents selected for individual 
examination in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), we would select mandatory respondents for 
individual examination based upon CBP entry data. See Initiation 
Notice, 75 FR at 17699. In April and May 2010, we received comments on 
the issue of respondent selection from MRG, Pakfood, the domestic 
processors,\3\ and the petitioner.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The domestic processors consist of the American Shrimp 
Processors Association and the Louisiana Shrimp Association.
    \4\ The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April and May 2010, we received statements from 14 companies 
that indicated that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR.
    In July 2010, after considering the large number of potential 
exporters or producers involved in this administrative review, and the 
resources available to the Department, we determined that it was not 
practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise 
for which a review was requested. See Memorandum to James Maeder, 
Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior 
Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ``2009-2010 Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
Thailand: Selection of Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated July 
9, 2010 (Respondent Selection Memo). As a result, pursuant to section 
777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, we determined that we could reasonably 
individually examine only the two producers/exporters accounting for 
the largest volume of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Thailand 
during the POR (i.e., based on CBP entry data, Pakfood and MRG). 
Accordingly, we issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to these 
companies on July 9, 2010.
    On August 18, 2010, the domestic processors alleged that a 
particular market situation existed in Thailand during the POR that 
prevented home market prices of shrimp from being competitively set. 
Therefore, the domestic processors argued that the Department should 
not use home market sales as a basis for NV. In August and September 
2010, we received rebuttal and surrebuttal comments regarding this 
issue from the respondents and the domestic processors.
    In August 2010, we received responses from MRG and Pakfood to 
section A (i.e., the section related to general information) of the 
Department's questionnaire. Also in August 2010, we issued a 
supplemental section A questionnaire to Pakfood. In September 2010, we 
received responses from MRG and Pakfood to sections B and C (i.e., the 
sections covering the comparison market and U.S. sales, respectively) 
of the Department's questionnaire. In this same month, we also received 
Pakfood's response to section D (i.e., the section covering cost of 
production (COP) and constructed value (CV)) of the Department's 
questionnaire and its response to the Department's supplemental section 
A questionnaire.
    On September 28, 2010, the petitioner requested that the Department 
automatically initiate a sales-below-cost-investigation of MRG. On 
October 1, 2010, we issued a letter to the petitioner denying this 
request because the Department had not made a finding to disregard 
sales-below-cost for MRG in the most recently completed segment of the 
proceeding in which it participated as of the date of initiation of the 
current review.\5\ On October 6, 2010, the petitioner filed a company-
specific sales-below-cost allegation for MRG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See generally Import Administration Policy Bulletin 05-2, 
which can be found at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull05-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 7, 2010, the Department extended the preliminary results 
in the current review to no later than February

[[Page 12035]]

28, 2011. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: 
Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of the 
2009-2010 Administrative Reviews, 75 FR 62099, 62100 (Oct. 7, 2010) 
(2009-2010 Preliminary Extension).\6\ Also in October 2010, we issued 
supplemental sales questionnaires to each respondent, and we received 
responses to these questionnaires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In this notice, we incorrectly stated that the Department 
would issue the preliminary results no later than March 1, 2011. See 
2009-2010 Prelminary Extension, 75 FR at 62100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 21, 2010, the Department initiated a sales-below-cost 
investigation for MRG, and on that date we instructed MRG to respond to 
section D of the Department's questionnaire. See Memorandum to James 
Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from the Team, entitled, 
``February 2009-January 2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: The Petitioner's 
Allegation of Sales-Below-Cost of Production for Marine Gold Products 
Ltd.,'' dated October 21, 2010 (MRG Cost Investigation Memo).
    On October 29, 2010, the Department found that there was 
insufficient evidence to determine that a particular market situation, 
within the meaning of section 773(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act, existed in 
Thailand during the POR that would prevent a proper comparison between 
respondents' export prices and their home market prices. See Memorandum 
to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from Blaine 
Wiltse, Trade Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, ``2009-
2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Thailand: Allegation of a Particular Market Situation,'' 
dated October 29, 2010.
    In November and December 2010, we issued supplemental sales and 
cost questionnaires to both respondents, and we received responses to 
these supplemental questionnaires in these months.
    In January and February 2011, we verified the sales and cost data 
reported by Pakfood.

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp 
and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised 
(produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, 
tail-on or tail-off,\7\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which includes 
the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the 
scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), are products which are processed 
from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which are sold in 
any count size.
    The products described above may be processed from any species of 
warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally 
classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 
examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but 
are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 
(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river 
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), 
redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp 
(Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern 
rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp 
(Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white 
shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Thai white prawn (Penaeus indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food 
preparations, which are not ``prepared meals,'' that contain more than 
20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope 
of this order.
    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 
subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp and prawns generally classified 
in the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, 
in any state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-
on or peeled (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 
shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 
(5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns 
(HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted shrimp; and (8) 
certain battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) 
That is produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 
(2) to which a ``dusting'' layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 
percent purity has been applied; (3) with the entire surface of the 
shrimp flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; (4) with the 
non-shrimp content of the end product constituting between four and ten 
percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to 
being frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately 
after application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-
based product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of 
dusting above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or 
milk, and par-fried.
    The products covered by this order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 
1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, 
but rather the written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Preliminary No Shipment Determination

    In April and May 2010, 14 companies notified the Department that 
they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the United States 
during the POR; only 12 of these claims, however, were properly filed 
and/or contained information sufficient to determine whether shipments 
were, in fact, made. The Department subsequently confirmed with CBP the 
no-shipment claim made by these 12 companies. Because the evidence on 
the record indicates that these companies did not export subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR, we preliminarily 
determine that the following 12 companies had no reviewable 
transactions during the POR:
    (1) American Commercial Transport, Inc.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This company was listed in the Initiation Notice as American 
Commercial Transport (Thailand).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Ampai Frozen Food Co., Ltd.
    (3) Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd.
    (4) Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.
    (5) Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd.
    (6) Leo Transport Corporation Ltd.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This company was listed in the Initiation Notice as Leo 
Transports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd.
    (8) S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd.
    (9) Siam Marine Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.
    (10) Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd.
    (11) Thai Union Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

[[Page 12036]]

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

    \10\ This company was listed in the Initiation Notice as V Thai 
Food Product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the implementation of the 1997 regulations, our practice 
concerning no-shipment respondents has been to rescind the 
administrative review if the respondent certifies that it had no 
shipments and we have confirmed through our examination of CBP data 
that there were no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR. See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 
1997). As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instruct CBP to 
liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the deposit rate 
in effect on the date of entry.
    In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we 
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review 
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to 
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding. See Antidumping and 
Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 
FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment Policy Notice).
    Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate 
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address, 
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any 
existing entries of merchandise produced by the 12 companies listed 
above and exported by other parties at the all-others rate, should we 
continue to find that these companies had no shipments of subject 
merchandise in the POR in our final results. See, e.g., Magnesium Metal 
From the Russian Federation: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 75 FR 26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in 
Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: Final Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 56989 (Sept. 17, 2010); 
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 76700, 76701 (Dec. 9, 
2010).
    In addition, the Department finds that it is more consistent with 
the May 2003 clarification not to rescind the review in part in these 
circumstances but, rather, to complete the review with respect to these 
12 companies and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the 
final results of the review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of 
this notice, below.
    With respect to the remaining two companies which submitted 
deficient statements of no shipments during the POR, A. Wattanachai 
Frozen Products Co., Ltd. (Wattanachai) did not properly certify its 
statement of no shipments in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(g)(1), 
while Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., Ltd.'s (Calsonic) statement of no 
shipments contained inadequate information. The Department contacted 
each of these companies on multiple occasions requesting that they 
correct the deficiencies in their statements of no shipments; however, 
neither company responded to our requests. Therefore, we preliminarily 
find that there is insufficient evidence on the record of this review 
to conclude that these companies made no shipments of subject 
merchandise to the United States during the POR. Therefore, we are 
continuing to include both companies in this administrative review.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of shrimp from Thailand to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) or 
constructed export price (CEP) to the NV, as described in the 
``Constructed Export Price/Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' sections 
of this notice.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for 
MRG and Pakfood, we compared the EPs or CEPs of individual U.S. 
transactions, as applicable, to the weighted-average NV of the foreign 
like product in the appropriate corresponding calendar month where 
there were sales made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in 
the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by MRG and Pakfood covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales of shrimp to 
sales of shrimp made in the home market within the contemporaneous 
window period, which extends from three months prior to the month of 
the first U.S. sale until two months after the month of the last U.S. 
sale.
    Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to 
U.S. sales, according to section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we compared 
U.S. sales of non-broken shrimp to sales of the non-broken most similar 
foreign like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making 
the product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the 
physical characteristics reported by MRG and Pakfood in the following 
order: cooked form, head status, count size, organic certification, 
shell status, vein status, tail status, other shrimp preparation, 
frozen form, flavoring, container weight, presentation, species, and 
preservative. Where there were no sales of identical or similar non-
broken merchandise, we made product comparisons using CV, as discussed 
in the ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' 
section below. See section 773(a)(4) of the Act.
    With respect to sales comparisons involving broken shrimp, we 
compared Pakfood's sales of broken shrimp in the United States to sales 
of comparable quality shrimp in the home market. Where there were no 
sales of identical broken shrimp in the home market made in the 
ordinary course of trade to compare to U.S. sales, we compared U.S. 
sales of broken shrimp to sales of the most similar broken shrimp made 
in the ordinary course of trade. Where there were no sales of identical 
or similar broken shrimp, we made product comparisons using CV. MRG did 
not make sales of broken shrimp to the United States during the POR.
    Because we disallowed Pakfood's differentiation of trays under the 
``presentation'' product characteristic in the final results of the 
2008-2009 administrative review, we revised Pakfood's relevant 
presentation codes and product control numbers in our margin 
calculations, including the calculation of the COP, to reflect this 
change. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: Final 
Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 54847 (Sept. 9, 2010), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 12.

Constructed Export Price/Export Price

    For certain U.S. sales made by MRG and Pakfood, we calculated CEP 
in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act because the subject 
merchandise was first sold to unaffiliated purchasers after its 
importation into the United States.
    For the remaining U.S. sales made by MRG and Pakfood, we used EP 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold by the producer/exporter outside of the 
United States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 
United States prior to

[[Page 12037]]

importation and CEP methodology was not otherwise warranted based on 
the facts of record.
    MRG reported that, during the POR, it sold subject merchandise to 
the United States that it purchased from an unaffiliated producer. In 
such cases, the Department normally would base NV for those sales on 
MRG's sales in the comparison market of foreign like product produced 
by the same unaffiliated producer, in accordance with sections 771(16) 
and 773(a)(1)(B)(I) of the Act. In this case, however, MRG made no such 
sales in the home market. While the Department could have requested 
that the unaffiliated producer provide cost data for the U.S. sales, 
and based NV on the CV of the merchandise, we find that the percentage 
of MRG's U.S. sales accounted for by this merchandise is not 
significant. Therefore, we have not requested such information and, 
instead, as facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776(a)(1) of 
the Act, we have used MRG's costs to produce merchandise with 
characteristics identical or similar to the characteristics of the 
merchandise produced by the unaffiliated producer as the basis for CV. 
See Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Taiwan: Preliminary 
Results and Preliminary Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, 73 FR 45393, 45398 (Aug. 5, 2008), unchanged in 
Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils From Taiwan: Final Results and 
Rescission in Part of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 
74704 (Dec. 9, 2008). For further discussion, see the Memorandum to the 
File, from Blaine Wiltse, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 
entitled, ``Calculation Adjustments for Marine Gold Products Limited, 
for the Preliminary Results in the 2009-2010 Administrative Review of 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,'' dated February 28, 
2011 (MRG Prelim Calc Memo).
    We also revised the date of sale for certain of MRG's U.S. sales to 
report the date of the last invoice issued, which set the final 
material terms of sale, as the date of sale. For further discussion, 
see the MRG Prelim Calc Memo.
    We revised the data reported by Pakfood to take into account minor 
corrections found at verification. See Memorandum to the File, from 
Holly Phelps, Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, 
``Calculation Adjustments for Pakfood Public Company Limited and its 
affiliated subsidiaries, Okeanos Co., Ltd., Okeanos Food Co., Ltd., 
Takzin Samut Co., Ltd., Chaophraya Coldstorage Co., Ltd., and Asia 
Pacific (Thailand) Company Ltd. (collectively, ``Pakfood''), for the 
Preliminary Results in the 2009-2010 Administrative Review of Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand,'' dated February 28, 2011 
(Pakfood Prelim Calc Memo).

A. MRG

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to the 
starting price for billing adjustments and rebates in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign warehousing expenses, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, international freight expenses, marine 
insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. customs 
duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing 
fees), U.S. inland freight expenses, and U.S. warehousing expenses, 
where appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We based CEP on C&F (cost and freight) or DDP (delivered, duty 
paid) prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United States. We made 
deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, foreign 
warehousing expenses, foreign inland freight expenses, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, international freight expenses, marine 
insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. 
customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise 
processing fees). In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those selling expenses associated with 
economic activities occurring in the United States, including direct 
selling expenses (e.g., bank fees and imputed credit expenses) and 
indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs).
    Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced the 
starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In accordance 
with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit rate using 
the expenses incurred by MRG on its sales of the subject merchandise in 
the United States and the profit associated with those sales.

B. Pakfood

    We based EP on C&F and DDP packed prices to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions 
from the starting price for discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 
351.401(c). We also made deductions from the starting price for foreign 
warehousing expenses, foreign inland freight expenses, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses, marine 
insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, FDA 
inspection expenses, and U.S. customs duties (including harbor 
maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees), where appropriate, 
in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We recalculated 
foreign warehousing expenses to remove the amount of certain ``short'' 
payments received by Pakfood on its CEP sales. For further discussion, 
see the Pakfood Prelim Calc Memo.
    We based CEP on DDP prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the United 
States. We made deductions for billing adjustments, where appropriate, 
based on the value of ``short'' payments not collected by Pakfood 
during the POR, which Pakfood reported as part of warehousing expenses. 
For further discussion, see the Pakfood Prelim Calc Memo.
    We also made deductions for movement expenses, in accordance with 
section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, where appropriate, 
foreign warehousing expenses, foreign inland freight expenses, foreign 
brokerage and handling expenses, ocean freight expenses, marine 
insurance expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, FDA 
inspection expenses, and U.S. customs duties (including harbor 
maintenance fees and merchandise processing fees). We recalculated 
foreign warehousing expenses in the same manner noted above.
    In accordance with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 
351.402(b), we deducted direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit 
expenses), and indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying 
costs). Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the Act, we further reduced 
the starting price by an amount for profit to arrive at CEP. In 
accordance with section 772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP profit 
rate using the expenses incurred by Pakfood on its sales of the subject 
merchandise in the United States and the profit associated with those 
sales.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. See section 
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act. Based on this comparison, we determined that 
MRG and Pakfood had

[[Page 12038]]

viable home markets during the POR. Consequently, we based NV on home 
market sales for MRG and Pakfood.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id; 
see also Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final Results of Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review and Notice of Intent Not To Revoke 
Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 50999, 51001 (Aug. 18, 2010), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7 (OJ from 
Brazil). In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were 
at different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we 
reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of 
distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer 
category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\11\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Where 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it possible, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment was possible), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See, e.g., OJ from Brazil, 75 FR at 51001.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from both 
respondents regarding the marketing stages involved in making the 
reported home market and U.S. sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of 
distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below.
1. MRG
    MRG reported that it made sales through one channel of distribution 
in the United States (i.e., EP sales made directly to unaffiliated 
customers). However, during the POR, certain of MRG's EP sales were 
cancelled and then resold after importation into the United States on a 
CEP basis. These CEP sales represent a second channel of distribution 
for MRG's U.S. sales during the POR.
    MRG reported performing the following selling functions for its EP 
U.S. sales: Sales forecasting/market research; sales promotion/trade 
shows and advertising; direct sales personnel; paying commissions; 
order processing/sales documentation; packing/packaging; inventory 
maintenance; freight/delivery arrangements; providing cash discounts; 
providing financing; and warranty service. These selling activities can 
be generally grouped into four selling function categories for 
analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight and delivery; (3) 
inventory maintenance and warehousing; and, (4) warranty and technical 
support. Accordingly, based on the selling function categories, we find 
that MRG performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, 
inventory maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical 
support for all EP U.S. sales. MRG reported performing the same selling 
functions for its CEP U.S. sales as its EP U.S. sales. Therefore, 
because MRG did not perform any different selling functions to make its 
CEP U.S. sales, we find that such sales do not constitute a different 
LOT in the U.S. market. Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that 
there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the home market, MRG reported that it made sales 
through two channels of distribution (i.e., sales to one customer which 
purchases shrimp for processing into non-subject merchandise; and sales 
to all other customers). We examined the selling activities performed 
for these channels, and found that MRG performed the following selling 
functions for both channels: Order processing/sales documentation, 
inventory maintenance, limited freight/delivery services, financing 
services, warranty services, and packing/packaging. These selling 
activities can be generally grouped into four selling function 
categories for analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight and 
delivery services; (3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and (4) 
warranty and technical support. Accordingly, we find that MRG performed 
sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, inventory 
maintenance and warehousing, and warranty and technical support for all 
customers in the home market. In addition, MRG reported that it 
performed sales forecasting/market research and employed direct sales 
personnel at a low-to-medium level of intensity for one home market 
channel, and did not perform these activities for the other home market 
channel. However, after analyzing the selling functions performed for 
both sales channels in the home market, we find that the distinctions 
in selling functions are not significant. Therefore, based on the 
totality of the facts and circumstances, we preliminarily determine 
that there is one LOT in the home market for MRG.
    Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers 
are essentially the same, with the exception of commission payments 
made for certain U.S. sales. We note that this difference is not a 
sufficient basis to determine that the U.S. LOT is different from the 
home market LOT. Moreover, although there are some differences in the 
level of intensity at which some of the selling functions were 
performed in the two markets, we find that these differences are not 
significant. Therefore, based on the totality of the facts and 
circumstances, we preliminarily determine that sales to the U.S. and 
home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, 
no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted.
2. Pakfood
    Pakfood reported that it made EP and CEP sales through a single 
channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to distributors), and 
performed the following selling functions for sales to U.S. customers: 
Sales forecasting, market research, sales promotion, advertising, order 
processing, procurement/sourcing services, direct sales personnel, 
provision of cash

[[Page 12039]]

discounts, payment of commissions, freight and delivery services, 
warehousing services, and packing. These selling activities can be 
generally grouped into four selling function categories for analysis: 
(1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight and delivery services; (3) 
inventory maintenance and warehousing; and (4) warranty and technical 
support. Accordingly, based on the selling function categories, we find 
that Pakfood performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery 
services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for U.S. sales. 
Because all sales in the United States are made through a single 
distribution channel (i.e., direct sales to unaffiliated customers) and 
the selling activities to Pakfood's customers did not vary within this 
channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. 
market.
    With respect to the home market, Pakfood reported that it made 
sales to processors, distributors, retailers, and end-users. Pakfood 
stated that its home market sales were made through a single channel of 
distribution, direct from factory to customer, and that it performed 
the following selling functions for sales to home market customers: 
Sales forecasting, market research, sales promotion, advertising, 
procurement/sourcing services, order processing, direct sales 
personnel, provision of cash discounts, freight and delivery services, 
warehousing, and packing. These selling activities can be generally 
grouped into four selling function categories for analysis: (1) Sales 
and marketing; (2) freight and delivery services; (3) inventory 
maintenance and warehousing; and (4) warranty and technical support. 
Accordingly, we find that Pakfood performed sales and marketing, 
freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing at the same relative level of intensity for all customers 
in the home market. Because all sales in the home market sales are made 
through a single distribution channel and the selling activities to 
Pakfood's customers did not vary within this channel, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the home market for Pakfood.
    Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the selling functions performed for U.S. and home market customers 
are virtually identical, with the exception of commission payments made 
for certain U.S. sales. We note that this difference is not a 
sufficient basis to determine that the U.S. LOT is different from the 
home market LOT. Moreover, although there are some differences in the 
level of intensity at which some of the selling functions were 
performed in the two markets, we find that these differences are not 
significant. Therefore, based on the totality of the facts and 
circumstances, we preliminarily determine that sales to the U.S. and 
home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, 
no LOT adjustment or CEP offset is warranted.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegation, we found that 
there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that MRG's sales of 
shrimp in the home market were made at prices below its COP. 
Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a 
sales-below-cost investigation to determine whether MRG's sales were 
made at prices below its COP. See MRG Cost Investigation Memo.
    Moreover, we found that Pakfood made sales in the same comparison 
market below the COP in the most recently completed segment of this 
proceeding as of the date of initiation of this review and such sales 
were disregarded. See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From Thailand: 
Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 74 FR 47551, 47552 (Sept. 16, 2009). Thus, in accordance with 
section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we find that there are reasonable 
grounds to believe or suspect that Pakfood made sales in the home 
market at prices below the cost of producing the merchandise in the 
current POR.
1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
respondents' COPs based on the sum of their costs of materials and 
conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses 
and interest expenses (see ``Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices'' 
section, below, for treatment of third country selling expenses).
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent 
in its most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, 
for the following instance.
    We have revised Pakfood's G&A expenses to eliminate certain double 
counting of direct selling expenses. For further discussion of these 
adjustments, see the memorandum from Ernest Gziryan, Accountant, to 
Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results--Pakfood Public Company Limited,'' dated February 
28, 2011.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 
the Act, we compared the adjusted weighted-average COP to the home 
market sales prices of the foreign like product, in order to determine 
whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of this 
comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. The 
prices (inclusive of billing adjustments, where appropriate) were 
exclusive of any applicable movement charges, discounts, direct and 
indirect selling expenses and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    In determining whether to disregard home market sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act whether: (1) Within an extended period 
of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) such 
sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of all costs 
within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of trade. In 
accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, where less 
than 20 percent of the respondent's home market sales of a given 
product are at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any 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 MRG's 
and Pakfood's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, 
in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales 
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.

[[Page 12040]]

    For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no 
home market sales in the ordinary course of trade, we compared CEPs or 
EPs, as appropriate, to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 
Act. See ``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' 
section below.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

1. MRG
    For MRG, we calculated NV based on delivered prices to unaffiliated 
customers in the home market. We made adjustments to the starting 
price, where appropriate, for billing adjustments, in accordance with 
19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions for foreign inland freight 
expenses and foreign warehousing expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B) 
of the Act.
    For comparisons to EP sales, we made adjustments under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 
circumstances of sale for direct selling expenses (including bank fees 
and imputed credit expenses) and commissions, where appropriate. 
Because commissions were paid only on sales in the U.S. market, we also 
made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) The amount of 
commissions paid in the U.S. market; or (2) the amount of indirect 
selling expenses incurred in the home market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). We 
recalculated MRG's foreign indirect selling expense ratio to remove 
sales of scrap from the denominator of the calculation. See MRG Prelim 
Calc Memo.
    For comparisons to CEP sales, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we deducted from NV 
direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses and bank fees) 
and commissions. Because commissions were paid only in the U.S. market, 
we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) The amount 
of commission paid in the U.S. market; or (2) the amount of indirect 
selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) incurred in the 
home market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e). As noted above, we recalculated 
MRG's foreign indirect selling expense ratio.
    Finally, for all price-to-price comparisons, we made adjustments 
for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act.
2. Pakfood
    We based NV for Pakfood on ex-factory or delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the home market, or prices to affiliated 
customers in the home market that were determined to be at arm's 
length. Where appropriate, we made adjustments to the starting price 
for billing adjustments. We also made deductions, where appropriate, 
from the starting price for inland freight and warehousing expenses, 
under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act.
    For comparisons to EP sales, we made adjustments under section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in 
circumstances of sale for direct selling expenses (including imputed 
credit expenses, bank fees, and express mail charges) and commissions, 
where appropriate. Because commissions were paid only in the U.S. 
market, we made a downward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) The 
amount of commission paid in the U.S. market; or (2) the amount of 
indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) incurred 
in the home market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e).
    For comparisons to CEP sales, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we deducted from NV 
direct selling expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses, bank fees, and 
express mail charges).
    Finally, for all price-to-price comparisons, we made adjustments 
for differences in costs attributable to differences in the physical 
characteristics of the merchandise, in accordance with section 
773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. We also deducted home 
market packing costs and added U.S. packing costs, in accordance with 
sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for 
MRG's shrimp products for which we could not determine the NV based on 
home market sales because, as noted in the ``Results of the COP Test'' 
section above, all sales of the comparable products failed the COP 
test, we based NV on CV.
    Sections 773(e)(1) and (2)(A) of the Act provides that CV shall be 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
imported merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For 
MRG, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication based on the 
methodology described in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section, 
above. We based SG&A and profit for MRG on the actual amounts incurred 
and realized by it in connection with the production and sale of the 
foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade for consumption in 
the home market, in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
    For MRG, we made adjustments to CV for differences in circumstances 
of sale, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and (a)(8) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-
sale adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on MRG's 
comparison market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses 
to, CV. See 19 CFR 351.410(c). For comparisons to CEP, we deducted 
MRG's comparison market direct selling expenses from CV. Id. We also 
made adjustments, when applicable, for MRG's home market indirect 
selling expenses to offset U.S. commissions in EP comparisons. See 19 
CFR 351.410(e).

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars for all spot 
transactions by MRG and Pakfood, in accordance with section 773A of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates in effect on the 
dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. In 
addition, both MRG and Pakfood reported that they purchased forward 
exchange contracts which were used to convert their sales prices into 
home market currency. Under 19 CFR 351.415(b), if a currency 
transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export sale 
under consideration, the Department is directed to use the exchange 
rate specified with respect to such currency in the forward sale 
agreement to convert the foreign currency. See, e.g., Notice of Final 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 
Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen and Canned 
Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (Dec. 23, 2004), and 
accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; see also 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Preliminary Results and 
Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 73 FR 12103, 12113 (Mar. 6, 2008), unchanged in Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp form India: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 40492 (July 15, 2008).

[[Page 12041]]

Therefore, for MRG and Pakfood we used the reported forward exchange 
rates for currency conversions where applicable.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2009, through 
January 31, 2010, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                    Percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Gold Products Co., Ltd........................               0.68
Pakfood Public Company Limited/Asia Pacific                         0.72
 (Thailand) Co., Chaophraya Cold Storage Co., Ltd./
 Okeanos Co. Ltd./Okeanos Food Co. Ltd./Takzin Samut
 Co., Ltd............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies: 
\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 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).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Manufacturer/exporter                    Percent margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Wattanachai Frozen Products Co., Ltd..............               0.70
A.S. Intermarine Foods Co., Ltd......................               0.70
ACU Transport Co., Ltd...............................               0.70
American Commercial Transport (Thailand).............                  *
Ampai Frozen Food Co., Ltd...........................                  *
Apex Maritime (Thailand) Co., Ltd....................               0.70
Apex Maritime Thailand...............................               0.70
Asian Seafoods Coldstorage Public Co., Ltd/Asian                    0.70
 Seafoods Coldstorage (Suratthani) Co./STC Foodpak
 Ltd.................................................
Assoc. Commercial Systems............................               0.70
B.S.A. Food Products Co., Ltd........................               0.70
Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product Co., Ltd...........               0.70
Best Fruits..........................................               0.70
C.P. Merchandising Co., Ltd..........................               0.70
C Y Frozen Food Co., Ltd.............................               0.70
Calsonic Kansei (Thailand) Co., Ltd..................               0.70
Century Industries Co., Ltd..........................               0.70
Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd...................               0.70
Chaiwarut Co., Ltd...................................               0.70
Charoen Pokphand Foods Public Co., Ltd...............               0.70
Chue Eie Mong Eak....................................               0.70
Conair Intertraffic Co., Ltd.........................               0.70
Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd.....................               0.70
Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd and/or Crystal Seafood.               0.70
Daedong (Thailand) Co. Ltd...........................               0.70
Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd.....................               0.70
Daiho (Thailand) Co., Ltd............................               0.70
Dextrans Worldwide (Thailand) Ltd....................               0.70
Dragon International Furniture Co., Ltd..............               0.70
Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd....................               0.70
Enburg Food Thai Co., Ltd............................               0.70
Extra Maritime Co., Ltd..............................               0.70
F.A.I.T. Corporation Limited.........................               0.70
Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd.......................                  *
Findus (Thailand) Ltd................................               0.70
Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd.............               0.70
Frozen Marine Products Co., Ltd......................               0.70
Fujitsu General (Thailand) Co., Ltd..................               0.70
Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd/Gallant Seafoods                  0.70
 Corporation.........................................
Golden Sea Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.....................               0.70
Good Fortune Cold Storage Co., Ltd...................               0.70
Good Luck Product Co., Ltd...........................               0.70
Great Food (Dehydration) Co., Ltd....................               0.70
Grobest Frozen Foods Co., Ltd........................                  *
Gulf Coast Crab Intl.................................               0.70
H.A.M. International Co., Ltd........................               0.70
Heng Seafood Limited Partnership.....................               0.70
Herba Bangkok S.L....................................               0.70
Heritrade Co., Ltd...................................               0.70
HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd..............................               0.70
I.T. Foods Industries Co., Ltd.......................               0.70

[[Page 12042]]

 
Inter-Furnitech Co., Ltd.............................               0.70
Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd.....................                  *
Inter-Pacific Marine Products Co., Ltd...............               0.70
Inter-Taste Foods Co., Ltd...........................               0.70
K Fresh..............................................               0.70
K. D. Trading Co., Ltd...............................               0.70
KF Foods.............................................               0.70
K.L. Cold Storage Co., Ltd...........................               0.70
K & U Enterprise Co., Ltd............................               0.70
Kiang Huat Sea Gull Trading Frozen Food Public Co.,                 0.70
 Ltd.................................................
Kingfisher Holdings Ltd..............................               0.70
Kibun Trdg...........................................               0.70
Klang Co., Ltd.......................................               0.70
Kitchens of the Ocean (Thailand) Ltd.................               0.70
Kongphop Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.......................               0.70
Kosamut Frozen Foods Co., Ltd........................               0.70
Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd............................               0.70
Leo Transports.......................................                  *
Maersk Line..........................................               0.70
Magnate & Syndicate Co., Ltd.........................               0.70
Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd....................                  *
May Ao Co., Ltd/May Ao Foods Co., Ltd................               0.70
Meyer Industries Ltd.................................               0.70
Namprik Maesri Ltd Part..............................               0.70
Narong Seafood Co., Ltd..............................               0.70
National Starch and Chemical Thailand Ltd............               0.70
Noble Marketing Co., Ltd.............................               0.70
NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd..........................               0.70
Oki Data Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd...........               0.70
Ongkorn Cold Storage Co., Ltd/Thai-Ger Marine Co.,                  0.70
 Ltd.................................................
Orion Electric Co., Ltd..............................               0.70
Pacific Queen Co., Ltd...............................               0.70
Penta Impex Co., Ltd.................................               0.70
Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine.........................               0.70
Pioneer Manufacturing (Thailand) Co., Ltd............               0.70
Piti Seafoods Co., Ltd...............................               0.70
Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd.....................               0.70
Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd....................               0.70
Protainer International Co., Ltd.....................               0.70
Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd...........................               0.70
Rayong Coldstorage (1987) Co., Ltd...................               0.70
S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd.........................               0.70
S&P Aquarium.........................................               0.70
S&P Syndicate Public Company Ltd.....................               0.70
S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd...................               0.70
S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd and/or.....                  *
S. Khonkaen Food Ind Public..........................
SMP Foods Products Co., Ltd..........................               0.70
Samui Foods Company Limited..........................               0.70
Sea Bonanza Food Co., Ltd............................               0.70
Seafoods Enterprise Co., Ltd.........................               0.70
Seafresh Fisheries/Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd.               0.70
Siam Food Supply Co., Ltd............................               0.70
Siam Intersea Co., Ltd...............................               0.70
Siam Marine Products Co. Ltd.........................               0.70
Siam Marine Frozen Foods Co., Ltd....................                  *
Siam Ocean Frozen Foods Co. Ltd......................                  *
Siam Union Frozen Foods..............................               0.70
Siamchai International Food Co., Ltd.................               0.70
Smile Heart Foods Co. Ltd............................               0.70
Southport Seafood Company Limited....................               0.70
Suntechthai Intertrading Co., Ltd....................               0.70
Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd......................               0.70
Surapon Seafoods Public Co., Ltd/Surapon Foods Public
 Co., Ltd/0.70.......................................
Surat Seafoods Co., Ltd..............................
Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd..................               0.70
Suree Interfoods Co., Ltd............................               0.70
T.H.I. Group (Bangkok) Co., Ltd......................               0.70
T.P. Food Canning Ltd, Part..........................               0.70
T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd..............................               0.70
Tanaya International Co., Ltd........................               0.70
Tanaya Intl..........................................               0.70
Teppitak Seafood Co., Ltd............................               0.70
Tey Seng Cold Storage Co., Ltd.......................               0.70

[[Page 12043]]

 
Tep Kinsho Foods Co., Ltd............................               0.70
Thai Agri Foods Public Co., Ltd......................               0.70
Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd...........................               0.70
Thai Lee Agriculture Co., Ltd........................               0.70
Thai Mahachai Seafood Products Co., Ltd..............               0.70
Thai Ocean Venture Co., Ltd..........................               0.70
Thai Onono Public Co., Ltd...........................               0.70
Thai Patana Frozen...................................               0.70
Thai Prawn Culture Center Co., Ltd...................               0.70
Thai Royal Frozen Food Co. Ltd.......................               0.70
Thai Spring Fish Co., Ltd............................               0.70
Thai Union Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd/0.70......
Thai Union Seafood Co., Ltd..........................
Thai Union Manufacturing Co., Ltd and/or Thai Union                    *
 Mfg.................................................
Thai World Imp & Exp Co..............................               0.70
Thai Yoo Ltd, Part...................................               0.70
Thaveevong Industry Co., Ltd.........................               0.70
The Siam Union Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.................               0.70
The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd/Bright Sea Co.,                  0.70
 Ltd.................................................
Trang Seafood Products Public Co., Ltd...............               0.70
Transamut Food Co., Ltd..............................               0.70
Tung Lieng Trdg......................................               0.70
United Cold Storage Co., Ltd.........................               0.70
V Thai Food Product..................................                  *
Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd..............................               0.70
Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd...........................               0.70
Yeenin Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.........................               0.70
YHS Singapore Pte....................................               0.70
ZAFCO TRDG...........................................               0.70
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit cases briefs not later 
than the later of 30 days after the date of publication of this notice 
or one week after the issuance of the cost verification report for 
Pakfood. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, 
may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or 
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each 
argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the 
argument; and (3) a table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and 
(d)(2).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
Room 1870, within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice. 
Requests should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone 
number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 
discussed. Id. Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those 
raised in the respective case briefs. Id. The Department will issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including the results of 
its analysis of the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 
120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to 
section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department will 
issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject 
to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of this review.
    MRG and Pakfood reported the entered value for certain of their 
U.S. sales. We will calculate 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 
these sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    For the remainder of MRG's and Pakfood's U.S. sales, we note that 
these companies did not report the entered value for the U.S. sales in 
question. We will calculate importer-specific per-unit duty assessment 
rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping duties calculated 
for the examined sales and dividing this amount by the total quantity 
of those sales. With respect to MRG's and Pakfood's U.S. sales of 
shrimp with sauce for which no entered value was reported, we will 
include the total quantity of the merchandise with sauce in the 
denominator of the calculation of the importer-specific rate because 
CBP will apply the per-unit duty rate to the total quantity of 
merchandise entered, including the sauce weight. To determine whether 
the duty assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the 
requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate 
importer-specific ad valorem ratios based on the estimated entered 
value.
    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we 
will calculate an assessment rate based on the average of the margins 
calculated for those companies selected for individual review, weighted 
by each company's publicly-ranged quantity of reported U.S. 
transactions. In situations where we cannot apply our normal 
methodology of calculating a weighted-average margin due to requests to 
protect business-proprietary information but where use of a simple 
average does not yield the best proxy of the weighted-average margin 
relative to publicly available data, normally we will use the publicly 
available figures as a matter of

[[Page 12044]]

practice. See Bearings from France, 75 FR at 53663.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which 
the assessment rate is de minimis. The final results of this review 
shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries 
of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for 
future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable. See 751(a)(2)(C) 
of the Act.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy Notice. This clarification will 
apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by 
companies included in these final results of review for which the 
reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the 
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the 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-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 5.34 percent, the all-
others rate made effective by the Section 129 Determination.\13\ These 
deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until 
further notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Effective January 16, 2009, there is no longer a cash 
deposit requirement for certain producers/exporters in accordance 
with the Implementation of the Findings of the WTO Panel in United 
States Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Thailand: Notice of 
Determination under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 74 FR 5638 (Jan. 30, 2009) (Section 
129 Determination).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply 
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that 
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent 
assessment of double antidumping duties.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: February 28, 2011.
Paul Piquado,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2011-4978 Filed 3-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P