Certain Frozen or Canned

Warmwater Shrimp and Pawns From

Brazil, China, Equador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam

Investigations Nos. 731-TA-1063--1068 (Final)

Publication 3748 January 2005
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS

Address all communications to

Secretary to the Commission

United States International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Jim McClure, Investigator

Elizabeth Haines, Investigator

Roger Corey, Industrial Analyst

John Benedetto, Economist

John Ascienzo, Auditor

Chand Mehta, Auditor

Marc Bernstein, Attorney

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician

With contributions from:

Mara Alexander, Statistician

Lita David--Harris, Statistician

Carolyn Holmes, Statistical Assistant

Darlene Smith, Statistical Assistant

Shakira Van Savage, Economics Intern

Loretta Willis, Statistical Assistant

Staff assigned

Robert A. Rogowsky

Director of Operations

Stephen Koplan, Chairman

Deanna Tanner Okun, Vice Chairman

Marcia E. Miller

Jennifer A. Hillman

Charlotte R. Lane

Daniel R. Pearson
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436

Publication 3748 January 2005

www.usitc.gov

Certain Frozen or Canned

Warmwater Shrimp and Pawns From

Brazil, China, Equador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam

Investigations Nos. 731-TA-1063--1068 (Final)

i

CONTENTS

Page

Determinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Views of the Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Concurring and dissenting views of Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Additional views Commissioner Pearson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Part I: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Nature and extent of sales at LTFV and critical circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

The subject product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Physical characteristics and uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-5

Production process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-6

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-9

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Price . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Domestic like product issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market ................................... II-1

U.S. market segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-2

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-2

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-8

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-10

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10

Comparisons of domestic products and subject imports ............................. II-10

U.S. purchasers ............................................................ II-15

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-17

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-25

U.S. supply elasticity ....................................................... II-25

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-26

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-26

Part III: U.S. producers’ production, shipments, and employment .......................... III-1

U.S. production and producers ................................................... III-1

U.S. processors’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization ......................... III-5

U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments and export shipments ................................ III-5

U.S. processors’ imports and purchases of imports ................................... III-6

U.S. processors’ inventories ..................................................... III-6

U.S. employment, wages, and productivity ......................................... III-6

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Negligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Apparent U.S. consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

U.S. market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4

Ratio of subject imports to U.S. production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-8

Critical circumstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9
ii

CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Part IV: U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and market shares–Continued

Cumulation considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Geographical markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Simultaneous presence in the market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Part V: Pricing and related information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Factors affecting prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Pricing methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-5

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Purchasers’ reported average unit value trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-9

Lost sales and lost revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10

Part VI: Financial experience of U.S. processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Operations of U.S. warmwater shrimp processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1

Capital and investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Capital expenditures and research and development expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Assets and return on investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-3

Part VII: Threat considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII-1

The industry in Brazil .......................................................... VII-1

The industry in China .......................................................... VII-3

The industry in Ecuador ........................................................ VII-3

The industry in India ........................................................... VII-3

The industry in Thailand ........................................................ VII-3

The industry in Vietnam ........................................................ VII-7

U.S. inventories of product from the subject countries ................................ VII-8

Antidumping duty orders in third-country markets ................................... VII-9

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Calendar of the public hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Canned shrimp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Purchaser comparisons of purchasing factors for warmwater shrimp from various countries . . E-1

F. U.S. fishermen data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

G. Pricing data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1

H. Alleged effects of imports on U.S. processors’ existing development and production efforts,

growth, investment, and ability to raise capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
iii

CONTENTS–Continued

Page

Appendixes–Continued

I. Selected financial data of domestic processors on their shrimp processing operations . . . . . . . I-1

J. Alleged effects of imports on U.S. fishermen’s existing development and harvesting efforts,

growth, investment, and ability to raise capital . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

 1

 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)).

 2

 The Commission further determines that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to those imports of the

subject merchandise from China that were subject to the affirmative critical circumstances determination by the

Department of Commerce.

 3

 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured

by reason of imports of certain frozen or canned warmwater shrimp or prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam that were found by Commerce to be sold in the United States at LTFV.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigations Nos. 731-TA-1063-1068 (Final)

CERTAIN FROZEN OR CANNED WARMWATER SHRIMP AND PRAWNS

FROM BRAZIL, CHINA, ECUADOR, INDIA, THAILAND, AND VIETNAM

DETERMINATIONS

On the basis of the record1

 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International

Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. § 1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of

imports from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam of certain non-canned warmwater

shrimp and prawns, provided for in subheadings 0306.13.00 and 1605.20.10 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), that have been found by the Department of Commerce

(Commerce) to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).2

The Commission further determines that an industry in the United States is not materially injured

by reason of imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam of canned warmwater shrimp and prawns,

provided for in subheading 1605.20.10 of the HTSUS, that have been found by Commerce to be sold in

the United States at LTFV.3

 The Commission also determines that imports from Brazil, Ecuador, and

India of canned warmwater shrimp and prawns are negligible.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted these investigations effective December 31, 2003, following receipt of

a petition filed with the Commission and Commerce by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee,

Washington, DC; the Versaggi Shrimp Corp., Tampa, FL; and the Indian River Shrimp Co., Chauvin, LA. 

The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of

preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of certain frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and

prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam were being sold at LTFV within the

meaning of section 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. § 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase

of the Commission’s investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given

by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of August 19, 2004 (69 FR 51472). 

The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on December 1, 2004, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane determine that an industry in the United States is materially injured

by reason of certain frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand,

and Vietnam that are sold in the United States at LTFV. See Concurring and Dissenting Views of Chairman Koplan

and Commissioner Lane. They join sections I, II.A., II.B.1, II.B.2, and III of this opinion.

 2

 Chairman Koplan notes the statute provides that in the absence of good cause shown, the Commission may not

review such a determination less than 24 months after the date of publication or notice of that determination. 

Therefore, he believes that it is incumbent on the interested parties to show good cause why the Commission should

review this determination less than 24 months after the date of publication of notice of its affirmative determination. 

In his view, the Commission will not be in a position to determine whether a changed circumstance review should be

initiated without such information.

VIEWS OF THE COMMISSION

Based on the record in these investigations, we determine that an industry in the United States

producing certain warmwater shrimp and prawns other than canned warmwater shrimp and prawns is

materially injured by reason of imports of subject merchandise from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam that are sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). We find that

critical circumstances do not exist with respect to the subject merchandise from China.1

We further determine that an industry in the United States producing canned warmwater shrimp

and prawns is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of subject

merchandise from China, Thailand, or Vietnam that are sold in the United States at LTFV. We determine

that imports of canned warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil, Ecuador, and India are negligible.

I. BACKGROUND

The subject product includes certain warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen or canned,

wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or

peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen or

canned form. Warmwater shrimp are generally classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. 

Over 90 percent of warmwater shrimp harvested in the United States is wild-caught in the Gulf of Mexico

or the Southeastern Atlantic Ocean. After harvesting, the overwhelming majority of warmwater shrimp is

sold to processors and frozen.

The petitions were filed by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee. Domestic production

of warmwater shrimp accounted for less than 16 percent of the U.S. market during the period examined. 

The largest source of warmwater shrimp was imports from subject countries, which gained over 7

percentage points of market share between 2001 and 2003. Also present in the market were imports of

warmwater shrimp from nonsubject sources. Apparent U.S. consumption of warmwater shrimp grew

steadily over the period examined.

When the Commission conducted its vote in these investigations, it stated that it was concerned 

about the possible impact of the December 26, 2004, tsunami on the shrimping industries of India and

Thailand. The tsunami occurred prior to the closing of the record in these investigations on December 27,

2004. At the time the record closed, however, factual information as to any impact of the tsunami on the

ability of producers in India or Thailand to produce and export shrimp was not available. We intend to

collect information as to whether the tsunami's impact on the affected countries’ industries warrants the

Commission self-initiating a changed circumstances review under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b). This provision

allows the Commission to address situations in which changed circumstances warrant review of a final

affirmative determination that has resulted in the issuance of an antidumping order. If the Commission

decides to conduct a review under 19 U.S.C. § 1675(b), it shall determine whether revocation of the order

is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury.2

 A decision as to whether a changed

circumstance review will be initiated as to India and/or Thailand will be made following the collection
 3

 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 4 Id.

 5 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10).

 6

 See, e.g., NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp.2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel

Corp. v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 749 n.3 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1990), aff’d, 938 F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“every like product determination ‘must be made on the

particular record at issue’ and the ‘unique facts of each case’”). The Commission generally considers a number of

factors including: (1) physical characteristics and uses; (2) interchangeability; (3) channels of distribution;

(4) customer and producer perceptions of the products; (5) common manufacturing facilities, production processes,

and production employees; and, where appropriate, (6) price. See Nippon, 19 CIT at 455, n.4; Timken Co. v. 

United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1996).

 7

 See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 90-91 (1979).

 8

 Nippon Steel, 19 CIT at 455; Torrington, 747 F. Supp. at 748-49; see also S. Rep. No. 96-249, at 90-91 (1979)

(Congress has indicated that the domestic like product standard should not be interpreted in “such a narrow fashion

as to permit minor differences in physical characteristics or uses to lead to the conclusion that the product and article

are not ‘like’ each other, nor should the definition of ‘like product’ be interpreted in such a fashion as to prevent

consideration of an industry adversely affected by the imports under consideration”).

 9

 Hosiden Corp. v. Advanced Display Mfrs., 85 F.3d 1561, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Commission may find single

domestic like product corresponding to several different classes or kinds defined by Commerce); Torrington,

747 F. Supp. at 748-52 (affirming Commission’s determination of six domestic like products in investigations where

Commerce found five classes or kinds).

4

and analysis of information submitted. A request for information as well as a timetable for the

consideration of any such information will be published following issuance of this opinion.

II. DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

To determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with

material injury by reason of imports of the subject merchandise, the Commission first defines the

“domestic like product” and the “industry.”3

 Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended

(“the Act”), defines the relevant domestic industry as the “producers as a [w]hole of a domestic like

product, or those producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major

proportion of the total domestic production of the product.”4

 In turn, the Act defines “domestic like

product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses

with, the article subject to an investigation.”5

The decision regarding the appropriate domestic like product(s) in an investigation is a factual

determination, and the Commission has applied the statutory standard of “like” or “most similar in

characteristics and uses” on a case-by-case basis.6

 No single factor is dispositive, and the Commission

may consider other factors it deems relevant based on the facts of a particular investigation.7

 The

Commission looks for clear dividing lines among possible like products, and disregards minor variations.8

Although the Commission must accept the determination of the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”)

as to the scope of the imported merchandise sold at less than fair value, the Commission determines what

domestic product is like the imported articles that Commerce has identified.9

A. Product Definition

In its final determinations, Commerce defined the imported merchandise within the scope of

investigation as:
 10 See 69 Fed. Reg. 70997, 71000-01 (Dec. 8, 2004) (China), 69 Fed. Reg. 71005, 71007-08 (Dec. 8, 2004)

(Vietnam); 69 Fed. Reg. 76910, 76911 (Dec. 23, 2004) (Brazil); 69 Fed. Reg. 76913, 76914 (Dec. 23, 2004)

(Ecuador); 69 Fed. Reg. 76916, 76916-17 (Dec. 23, 2004) (India), 69 Fed. Reg. 76918, 76919 (Dec. 23, 2004)

(Thailand).

5

certain warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen or canned, wild-caught (ocean

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or

peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise

processed in frozen or canned form.

The frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of the

investigations, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United

States (“HTSUS”), are products which are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns

through either freezing or canning and which are sold in any count size.

The products described above may be processed from any species of warmwater shrimp

and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally classified in, but are not limited

to, the Penaeidae family. Some examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater

species include, but are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana

prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp

(Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp

(Penaeus notialis), southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white

shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white shrimp

(Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus).

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or sauce are included in

the scope of the investigations. In addition, food preparations, which are not “prepared

meals,” that contain more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are also included

in the scope of the investigations.

Excluded from the scope are (1) breaded shrimp and prawns (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 (0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared

meals (1605.20.05.10); and (5) dried shrimp and prawns.

Commerce has additionally excluded shrimp sauce, certain dusted shrimp, and certain battered shrimp

from the scope definition.10

B. Analysis and Finding

1. The Preliminary Determination

In the preliminary determination, the Commission considered six separate domestic like product

arguments raised by the parties. Four of the arguments sought to divide the articles within the scope

definition: one on the basis of processing (“value added shrimp” v. “primary processed shrimp”), one on

the basis of size (pertaining to “salad shrimp”), one on the basis of species (pertaining to “giant freshwater
 11 Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and

Vietnam, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-1063-1068 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3672 at 6-13 (Feb. 2004) (“Preliminary

Determination”).

 12 Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3672 at 14-15.

 13 Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3672 at 14.

 14 Petitioner agrees with the analysis of fresh shrimp provided in the preliminary determination. Petitioner

Prehearing Brief at 20-23. The American Seafood Distributors Ass’n (ASDA), the sole respondent to address the

issue, has stated that it does not challenge the Commission’s analysis in its preliminary determination that fresh

shrimp should be included in the domestic like product. ASDA Posthearing Brief at A-57.

 15 The Commission did not collect pricing data for a “shrimp scampi” product, or for other types of flavored or

prepared shrimp products within the scope. The argument that “shrimp scampi” should be a separate domestic like

product was first presented to the Commission in a prehearing brief, several months after the questionnaires had been

circulated.

6

prawns”) and one on the basis of packaging (pertaining to canned shrimp). The Commission did not

accept any of these arguments, but stated it would again in any final phase investigations examine

whether it was appropriate to define canned shrimp as a separate domestic like product.11 In the final

phase, the parties have asserted two domestic like product arguments that seek to divide articles within

the scope. One concerns a product called “shrimp scampi,” which was not discussed in the preliminary

determination. The second concerns canned shrimp.

The Commission also considered in the preliminary determination whether to include breaded

shrimp, a further-processed product that Commerce has expressly excluded from the scope, in the

domestic like product. The Commission declined to do so,12 and no party has argued in the final phase

that breaded shrimp should be included in the domestic like product.

In the preliminary determination, the Commission accepted the argument that the domestic like

product should be defined more broadly to encompass fresh warmwater shrimp, an item excluded from

the scope. In evaluating this argument, the Commission used the “semifinished products” like product

analysis, because fresh shrimp is overwhelmingly used as an input in the production of the frozen

product. It found that fresh warmwater shrimp should be included in the same domestic like product as

the frozen article because it “is overwhelmingly sold in a processed form, and the initial stages of

processing do not significantly change the physical characteristics and uses of the product and appear to

add at most moderate value to the product.”13 There were no new arguments in the final phase of the

investigations concerning the inclusion of fresh warmwater shrimp in the domestic like product, 14 and the

record concerning fresh warmwater shrimp has not changed since the preliminary determination. 

Consequently, we again find fresh warmwater shrimp to be part of the domestic like product for the

reasons stated in the preliminary determination.

2. “Shrimp Scampi”

Xian-Ning Seafood Co. (“Xian-Ning”), an exporter of subject merchandise from Thailand, 

argues that the Commission should define “shrimp scampi” as a distinct domestic like product. XianNing describes the product as a battered product which contains a coating typically consisting of a

mixture of soybean oil, seasoned dry ingredients, and a liquid butter alternative. Petitioner opposes

defining “shrimp scampi” as a separate domestic like product. We examine Xian-Ning’s arguments

concerning “shrimp scampi” using the “traditional” like product analysis.15

Physical Characteristics and End Uses. One basic problem with Xian-Ning’s proposed “shrimp

scampi” domestic like product is its failure to provide any meaningful definition of the product. It

characterizes the product as a coated product that “typically consists of a mixture of soybean oil, seasoned
 16 Xian-Ning Prehearing Brief at 4 (emphasis added). Xian-Ning apparently defined “shrimp scampi” no more

precisely in its unsuccessful attempt to get Commerce to exclude the product from the scope definition. See

Memorandum from Edward C. Yang, Senior Enforcement Coordinator, to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, on Scope Clarification: Shrimp Scampi at 3-4, 7-8 (Nov. 29, 2004).

 17 Xian-Ning Prehearing Brief at 4.

 18 Xian-Ning Prehearing Brief at 9.

 19 Xian-Ning Prehearing Brief at 9.

 20 Xian-Ning Prehearing Brief, Ex. 5, ¶ 5.

 21 Xian-Ning identifies King & Prince Seafood as a domestic producer of “shrimp scampi.” Xian-Ning

Prehearing Brief, Ex. 5, ¶ 7. King & Prince (which was not providing testimony on this issue) stated at the

Commission hearing that it sold its value-added products to restaurants and food service distributors. Tr. at 239

(Mentzer). King & Prince’s website indicates that it sells “shrimp scampi” products to both distributors and

consumers. See http://www.kpseafood.com/Distributor/ProductDetail.aspx?product_id=71 (visited and printed Dec.

16, 2004) (distributor product); http://www.kpseafood.com/Consumer/ProductDetail.aspx?productid=295 (visited

and printed Dec. 16, 2004) (consumer product).

 22 Xian-Ning Prehearing Brief, Ex. 4.

 23 Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”) at 173 (Appelbaum).

 24 Xian-Ning Prehearing Brief at 10.

7

dry ingredients, and a liquid butter alternative,” and states that shrimp scampi can have “up to 28

ingredients,” but does not indicate what ingredients other than shrimp are essential to making a food

preparation “shrimp scampi.”16 Xian-Ning asserts that other shrimp within the scope is distinct from

“shrimp scampi” because it has no added flavor ingredients.17 This is incorrect, because products within

the scope such as marinated shrimp would also have flavor ingredients.

According to Xian-Ning, “shrimp scampi” is used in food preparations, most often as an entree.18

This does not distinguish “shrimp scampi” from other types of frozen shrimp within the scope.

Interchangeability. Xian-Ning contends that “shrimp scampi” can be consumed by the end-user

without preparation, while other types of frozen shrimp within the scope can be used in a greater range of

meal preparations.19 Xian-Ning does not contend that a home cook, or a restaurateur, could not use other

types of frozen shrimp within the scope to make “shrimp scampi.” Moreover, other products within the

scope such as marinated shrimp cannot be used in the same range of meal preparations as can a frozen,

unseasoned product.

Channels of Distribution. Xian-Ning states that “shrimp scampi” is sold exclusively to retail

outlets and is not sold to food service distributors or restaurants.20 We have reason to doubt the accuracy

of this assertion, which is unsupported by any data.21 In any event, Xian-Ning has not submitted any

probative information indicating that “shrimp scampi” has channels of distribution that differ from other

shrimp products within the scope.

Production Processes and Facilities. Xian-Ning has submitted a diagram of its own “shrimp

scampi” production process, which we assume arguendo would be typical of that of a domestic producer. 

The production process is the same as that for other types of frozen shrimp, except for a final step in

which the product is applied with the scampi batter.22

Producer and Customer Perceptions. Xian-Ning’s failure to define what constitutes “shrimp

scampi” suggests that the industry has no standard definition for the product. This was confirmed by a

petitioner industry witness.23 Xian-Ning admits that “shrimp scampi” would be carried in the freezer

section of a grocery store adjacent to other varieties of frozen shrimp.24 King & Prince, which Xian-Ning
 25 See http://www.kpseafood.com/Distributor/productLine.aspx (visited and printed Dec. 16, 2004).

 26 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not join the remainder of section II of the opinion. See

Concurring and Dissenting Views of Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane.

 27 There is a domestically-produced canned product which cannot be stored at room temperature and must be

stored frozen. Tr. at 146 (Blanchard). Chicken of the Sea and Seatech argued to not include this product in their

proposed domestic like product. Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief at A-1; Seatech Posthearing Brief at 3. We

do not include frozen canned shrimp in the shelf-stable canned warmwater shrimp domestic like product we define

below.

 28 Because fresh warmwater shrimp is the semifinished form of the frozen product, and fresh warmwater shrimp

would typically be frozen before it arrives at a canning facility, see Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 49, ¶ 4, its

inclusion in the same domestic like product as frozen shrimp does not affect the analysis below.

 29 Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3672 at 11.

 30 Chicken of the Sea Prehearing Brief, Ex. 1; Tr. at 162 (Cook) (Bumble Bee does not sell canned shrimp in large

food-service sizes).

 31 See Petitioner Prehearing Brief, Ex. 2, Cook Declaration, ¶ 3.

 32 See Bumble Bee Processors’ Questionnaire Response, response to question II-12; Chicken of the Sea

Posthearing Brief at 5.

8

identifies as a domestic producer of “shrimp scampi,” lists “shrimp scampi” on its website among a group

of sauced and battered frozen shrimp products.25 

Conclusion. The pertinent question for the Commission’s analysis concerns whether “shrimp

scampi” is different from the other domestically produced products within the scope definition, and not its

degree of similarity to a product outside the scope, as Xian-Ning has argued. For the reasons stated

above, we can discern no clear distinctions between “shrimp scampi” and other domestic products

described by the scope. Accordingly, we find that “shrimp scampi” is not a separate domestic like

product.26

3. Canned Warmwater Shrimp

Chicken of the Sea, International, and Seatech Corp., both of which are importers of subject

merchandise, argue that the Commission should define canned warmwater shrimp to be a separate

domestic like product. Petitioner has argued against separate like product treatment for canned shrimp. 

For purposes of the discussion below, we will use the term “canned shrimp” to refer to the domestic like

product sought by Seatech and Chicken of the Sea, which encompasses warmwater shrimp packaged in an

airtight container which can be stored at room temperature.27 For purposes of this section of the opinion,

we will use the term “frozen shrimp” to refer to all other articles that would be within the domestic like

product. As explained above, this would include both fresh warmwater shrimp and the other types of

frozen warmwater shrimp within the scope.28 In the preliminary determination, the Commission used a

“traditional” like product analysis in determining whether canned shrimp should be considered a separate

domestic like product.29 The parties have not disputed use of this analysis, which we apply below.

Physical Characteristics and End Uses. The salient feature of the domestically-produced canned

shrimp product proposed by Chicken of the Sea and Seatech is that it is sold in a can, which generally

contains four to six ounces of product and is shelf-stable. Thus, it does not require refrigeration or

freezing, in contrast to the other types of warmwater shrimp under consideration.30 Shrimp used for

canning are always cooked and peeled.31 They are typically much smaller than shrimp that are sold in

frozen form. Bumble Bee’s questionnaire response indicated that ***32 Questionnaire data indicate that
 33 Processors Questionnaire Responses, response to question II-12 (aggregation of responses).

 34 Petitioner Prehearing Brief, Ex. 8.

 35 Confidential Report (CR) at II-41, Public Report (PR) at II-26.

 36 Tr. at 271 (Herzig).

 37 Petitioner Prehearing Brief, Ex. 6.

 38 This would encompass preparations such as shrimp cocktail, Asian dishes such as kung pao shrimp or shrimp

with black bean sauce, and the “shrimp scampi” recipes referenced in the discussion above.

 39 Bumble Bee Processors’ Questionnaire Response, response to question II-9. 

 40 Tr. at 162 (Cook) (Bumble Bee does not sell canned shrimp in large food-service sizes); *** Questionnaire

Response, response to question IV-C (***).

 41 See CR at I-7, PR at I-6.

 42 CR at II-41, PR at II-26.

 43 Tr. at 89 (Cook), 162 (Cook).

 44 See CR at III-1, PR at III-1.

9

7.6 percent of U.S. processors’ commercial shipments of frozen shrimp in 2003 were of counts over 150

pieces per pound.33

The end use of both canned and frozen shrimp is in meal preparations. Domestic canned shrimp

producer Bumble Bee lists a variety of recipes for canned shrimp on its website, including shrimp cole

slaw, cheese shrimp chowder, “herby” shrimp pasta, shrimp puff appetizers, shrimp toast points, oyster

and shrimp gumbo, shrimp and crab enchiladas, and deluxe seafood dip.34

Interchangeability. Purchasers that commented on whether canned and frozen shrimp could be

used for the same end uses provided mixed responses, with two stating that the products could not be

substitutes, and two stating that consumers could use the products interchangeably in some end uses. It

should be noted, however, that only six of the 36 purchasers which submitted questionnaire responses

purchased both frozen and canned shrimp.35 The restaurateur who testified at the hearing stated that his

restaurant chain would not substitute canned shrimp for frozen shrimp.36

Petitioner submitted a large number of recipes gathered off the Internet which indicate that

canned or frozen shrimp can be substituted for each other. One general characteristic these recipes share

with the Bumble Bee recipes is that shrimp is one of several ingredients used to make the dish, and would

not be the central visual component of the dish.37 By contrast, in meal preparations using frozen shrimp,

shrimp will often be the central visual component of the preparation.38 That canned shrimp is always

cooked and peeled also limits the range of meal preparations in which it can be used in comparison to

frozen shrimp.

Channels of Distribution. Bumble Bee’s questionnaire response indicates that, throughout the

period examined, *** percent of its shipments were sold to distributors and *** percent were sold directly

to retailers and other buyers.39 The record indicates that the great majority of canned shrimp is ultimately

purchased by consumers in grocery stores.40 By contrast, petitioner has estimated that 80 percent of

frozen shrimp is consumed in restaurants.41 As previously stated, only six of 36 purchasers that

responded to the Commission’s purchaser questionnaire purchase both canned and frozen shrimp.42

Production Processes, Facilities, and Employees. There is one domestic processor of shelf-stable

canned shrimp, Bumble Bee, which does not process frozen shrimp.43 Consequently, there is no overlap

between producers of canned shrimp and producers of frozen shrimp. There were 36 other entities that

performed processing operations on frozen shrimp exclusively which provided usable data in response to

the Commission’s processors’ questionnaire.44 Bumble Bee indicates that certain processes and

equipment it uses to process canned shrimp are the same as those used by processors of frozen shrimp. 
 45 CR at I-9, PR at I-7-8; Tr. at 89 (Cook); Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 49, ¶ 6.

 46 Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 49, ¶ 7.

 47 CR at I-10, PR at I-8.

 48 See Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1; Tr. at 384 (Wendt).

 49 See http://www.bumblebee.com/products.jsp (visited and printed Dec. 16, 2004).

 50 Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief, Ex. 3, ¶¶ 9-14. Additionally, AC Nielsen consumer survey data indicate

that in 2003, ***. Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief, Ex. 4.

 51 Pricing data for the canned product is reported on a per can basis at CR/PR, Table G-10. These data were

converted to a per-pound basis based on a can containing four ounces of product. (Petitioner does not contest this. 

Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 27). The one domestically processed frozen product that was consistently higher

priced on a contemporaneous basis was the largest size (10-15 count per pound) product on which pricing

information was sought. It is reported at CR/PR, Table G-9. The lower priced products are reported at CR/PR,

Tables G-1-8. For product definitions, see CR at V-7, PR at V-6.

 52 Petitioner Posthearing Brief at C-34.

 53 We have reviewed several investigations the parties have cited that involved food or agricultural products. 

Some of the investigations did not involve comparisons of products within the scope, and thus appear to us to be of

(continued...)

10

These include de-icing, weighing, peeling, grading, deveining, blanching, and cleaning.45 However,

Bumble Bee’s production process also includes several important steps that are unique to canning. These

include ***. These steps all require specialized equipment.46 The retort processing equipment used to

sterilize cans is unique to canning and imparts several of the physical characteristics distinctive to the

product, such as its ability to be stored for long periods without refrigeration or freezing.47 The canning

process also affects the physical appearance and texture of the product.48

Producer and Customer Perceptions. Bumble Bee’s website depicts canned shrimp as one

member of a family of branded canned seafood products which also encompasses canned salmon, canned

tuna, canned crab, canned oysters, canned clams, and sardines.49 Grocers, which are the principal

purchasers of canned shrimp, typically display canned and frozen seafood in different parts of their store

that are supervised by different managers.50

Price. The pricing data collected by the Commission indicate that domestically-produced canned

shrimp is priced higher (on a per pound basis) than almost all of the frozen shrimp products on which the

Commission collected pricing data.51 Petitioner does not dispute that a canned product will be more

expensive than a frozen product containing similarly-sized shrimp.52 This price differential appears to

reflect the additional costs associated with the processing steps unique to canned shrimp.

Conclusion. There are several clear distinctions between canned and frozen warmwater shrimp. 

Canned shrimp is always cooked and peeled, packaged through the retort process in a different form than

frozen shrimp, is shelf-stable, and is typically of a smaller size than the great majority of frozen shrimp. 

It is produced in the United States by a single company that produces canned shrimp exclusively, using

equipment dedicated to the production of canned shrimp. Further, it can be distinguished from frozen

shrimp because it is generally not used for food preparations in which shrimp would be a central visual

focus, is not used to any significant extent by restaurants where the substantial majority of frozen shrimp

is consumed, is marketed by that company more as a canned seafood product than as a shrimp product,

and is priced higher on a per-pound basis than comparable sizes of frozen shrimp. 

Although we acknowledge that there is some overlap between canned and frozen shrimp in terms

of end uses and production equipment, and that both products are distributed to grocers, these overlaps do

not obscure the clear dividing line between canned shrimp and frozen shrimp. Accordingly, we find that

canned warmwater shrimp is a separate domestic like product.53
 53 (...continued)

limited relevance to the issue here. See Durum and Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-430A430B, 731-TA-1019A-1019B (Final), USITC Pub. 3639 at 5-12 (Oct. 2003) (hard red winter wheat, which was not

included in scope, not included in same domestic like product as hard spring wheat); Certain Preserved Mushrooms

from Chile, Inv. No. 731-TA-776 (Final), USITC Pub. 3144 at 4-6 (Nov. 1998) (fresh and marinated mushrooms,

neither of which was within scope, not included in same domestic like product as preserved mushrooms); Canned

Pineapple Fruit from Thailand, Inv. No., 731-TA-706 (Final), USITC Pub. 2907 at I-6-7 (July 1995) (fresh forms of

pineapple, which were not within scope, not included in same domestic like product as canned pineapple). In the

investigations that did involve comparisons between different domestically produced products described by the

scope, the Commission’s findings were based on factual circumstances peculiar to the individual investigations

rather than broader principles of general applicability. In our view, the factual circumstances in the cited

investigations do not strongly resemble the ones in these investigations. See Fresh Garlic from the People’s

Republic of China, Inv. No. 731-TA-683 (Final), USITC Pub. 2825 at I-8-12 (Nov. 1994) (fresh, dehy, and seed

garlic separate domestic like products); Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, Inv. No. 731-TA-768 (Final), USITC

Pub. 3116 at 5-7 (July 1998) (salmon cuts not distinct domestic like product from whole salmon). Consequently, we

do not find that the investigations provide significant guidance concerning how to resolve the issues presented here.

 54 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 55 See United States Steel Group v. United States, 873 F. Supp. 673, 681-84 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1994), aff’d, 96 F. 3d

1352 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

 56 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that these issues are equally applicable to the domestic industry

producing the certain warmwater shrimp domestic like product that they have defined.

11

4. Conclusion

We define two domestic like products in these investigations. The first like product consists of

fresh warmwater shrimp and prawns and those frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products defined in

Commerce’s scope definition. Throughout the remainder of this opinion, we will refer to this domestic

like product as “certain non-canned warmwater shrimp.” The second like product consists of canned

warmwater shrimp and prawns, and will be referred to as “canned warmwater shrimp.”

III. CERTAIN NON-CANNED WARMWATER SHRIMP

A. Domestic Industry and Related Parties

The domestic industry is defined as “producers as a [w]hole of a domestic like product, or those

producers whose collective output of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total

domestic production of the product.”54 In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general

practice has been to include in the industry all domestic production of the domestic like product, whether

toll-produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.55

There are two principal sets of domestic industry issues in these preliminary phase investigations

pertaining to the domestic industry producing certain non-canned warmwater shrimp.56 The first concerns

whether certain processors engage in sufficient production-related activity to be considered members of

this domestic industry. The second concerns whether appropriate circumstances exist to exclude certain

processors from this domestic industry under the statutory related parties provision. Because we have

defined this domestic like product to include fresh warmwater shrimp, fishermen that harvest warmwater

shrimp produce the domestic like product and consequently are part of the domestic industry. In light of
 57 As in the Commission’s preliminary views, Chairman Koplan and Vice Chairman Okun would conclude that

fishermen should be included in the domestic industry pursuant to the statutory grower/processor provision were

they to reach the issue. The record indicates that processed warmwater shrimp is produced from raw warmwater

shrimp in a “continuous line of production” in that over 90 percent of fresh shrimp are processed into frozen and

canned warmwater shrimp, warmwater shrimp is the principal raw material used through all processing steps through

cooking, and warmwater shrimp accounts for at least 80 percent of the weight of all shrimp products in the scope

definition. Additionally there is a “substantial coincidence” of economic interest between fishermen and processors

because the price fishermen receive for a specific size shrimp is largely determined by the price of the processed

product (as can be seen by the very high correlation between dockside and wholesale prices), and because fresh

shrimp accounted for over 70 percent of processor’s cost of goods sold during the period examined. See CR/PR,

Table VI-1. See generally Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3672 at 15 n.84.

 58 See Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 38-47. Respondents did not address this issue.

 59 In deciding whether a firm qualifies as a domestic producer, the Commission generally has analyzed the

overall nature of a firm's production-related activities in the United States, bearing in mind that production-related

activity at minimum levels may be insufficient to constitute domestic production. The Commission generally

considers six factors:

(1) source and extent of the firm's capital investment;

(2) technical expertise involved in U.S. production activities;

(3) value added to the product in the United States;

(4) employment levels;

(5) quantity and type of parts sourced in the United States; and 

(6) any other costs and activities in the United States directly leading to production of the like

product.

No single factor is determinative and the Commission may consider any other factors it deems relevant in light of the

specific facts of any investigation. See DRAMs and DRAM Modules from Korea, Inv. No. 701-TA-431

(Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3569 (December 2002) at 7-11 (casing activities are production); Greenhouse Tomatoes

from Canada, Inv. No. 731-TA-925 (Final), USITC Pub. 3499 (April 2002) at 10-11 (packers included in the

industry along with growers); Certain Cut-to-Length Steel Plate from France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, and

Korea, Inv. Nos. 701-TA-387-391, 731-TA-816-821 (Final), USITC Pub. 3273 at 9 (Jan. 2000). See also Large

Newspaper Printing Presses from Germany and Japan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-736-737 (Final) USITC Pub. 2988 at 7-8

(Aug. 1996). Commission practice has not clearly established a specific level of U.S. value added, or product

finished value, required to qualify a company as a domestic producer.

12

this, we find it unnecessary to determine whether fishermen should be included in the domestic industry

pursuant to the statutory grower/processor provision codified at section 771(4)(E) of the Act.57

1. Production-Related Activities

Petitioner contends that several firms that completed processors’ questionnaires do not engage in

sufficient production-related activities to be considered domestic producers.58 We consequently examine

whether each firm whose status petitioner challenges engages in sufficient production-related activity in

the United States to qualify as a domestic producer.59

The Commission made several findings in the preliminary determination concerning whether

certain activities conducted by processors constitute domestic production. The Commission found that

processing activities such as deheading, grading, machine peeling, and deveining all constitute domestic

production. It observed that these operations each require specialized equipment and that petitioner did
 60 Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3672 at 17.

 61 Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3672 at 17.

 62 Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3672 at 17-18.

 63 Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3672 at 17 n.90.

 64 Moreover, the parties have not asked for reconsideration of any of these findings. We note that much of the

information concerning individual processors derives from the preliminary phase questionnaires. Unless stated

otherwise, however, citations to questionnaires are to those issued in the final phase. 

 65 *** Processors’ Preliminary Phase Questionnaire Response, response to question II-12 (reprinted in Petitioner

Prehearing Brief, Ex. 17).

 66 Confidential Preliminary Determination at 27-28.

 67 *** Processors’ Preliminary Phase Questionnaire Response, response to question II-12.

 68 Confidential Preliminary Determination at 26-27.

 69 In its prehearing brief, petitioner observes that *** stated in its final phase questionnaire response ***. 

Although this is correct, *** response also observes that ***. *** Processors’ Questionnaire Response, response to

questions II-2, II-9, III-6. 

 70 *** Processors’ Preliminary Phase Questionnaire Response, response to question II-12 (reprinted in Petitioner

Prehearing Brief, Ex. 18).

 71 Confidential Preliminary Determination at 27-28.

13

not contest that these activities were sufficient to constitute domestic production.60 The Commission

additionally found that cooking constitutes domestic production, because it typically requires specialized

equipment and adds more value to the process than any preceding stage.61 By contrast, the Commission

found that marinating and skewering do not constitute domestic production because they involve no

specialized equipment and add relatively modest value to the processed shrimp product.62 Finally, the

Commission concluded that breading could not constitute domestic production activity because breaded

shrimp was not part of the domestic like product.63 We rely on these findings in our analysis below of the

specific firms whose status as domestic producers petitioner challenges.64

*** – The record indicates that during the period examined, *** engaged in marinating/saucing

and breading.65 As stated above, the Commission found in the preliminary determination that these

activities did not constitute domestic production. It consequently concluded that *** was not a domestic

producer.66 As the final phase record does not contain any additional information concerning the nature

of *** processing activities, we again find that *** does not engage in sufficient activities to be

considered a domestic producer.

*** – The record indicates that during the period examined, *** engaged in activities including

machine peeling and deveining.67 Consequently, in the preliminary determination, the Commission found

that *** engaged in sufficient activity to be considered a domestic producer.68 Consequently, for the

same reasons stated in the preliminary determination, we find that *** engaged in sufficient domestic

production activities to be considered a domestic producer.69

*** – The record indicates that during the period examined, *** engaged in breading,

marinating/saucing, and skewering.70 As stated above, the Commission found in the preliminary

determination that these activities did not constitute domestic production. It consequently concluded that

*** was not a domestic producer.71 The final phase record does not contain any additional information
 72 As discussed above, there is some information in the final phase record indicating that ***. The record does

not indicate, however, what, if any, processing activities that *** performs with respect to this product. We further

observe that one reason the Commission cited in the preliminary determination for concluding that *** processing

activities were insufficient to constitute domestic production was that the vast majority of warmwater shrimp the

firm used as an input for further processing was imported. Preliminary Determination, USITC Pub. 3672 at 17. This

remains true. See *** Processors Questionnaire, response to Question III-6.

 73 *** Processors’ Preliminary Phase Questionnaire Response, response to question II-12. 

 74 Confidential Preliminary Determination at 27.

 75 *** Processors’ Preliminary Phase Questionnaire Response, response to question II-12 (reprinted in Petitioner

Prehearing Brief, Ex. 15).

 76 *** Verification Report at 2 (Dec. 16, 2004).

 77 Electronic mail message from John Ascienzo, Commission auditor, to record concerning “*** processing

activities” (Dec. 22, 2004).

 78 *** Processors’ Preliminary Phase Questionnaire Response, response to question II-12.

 79 *** Preliminary Phase Processors’ Questionnaire Response, response to question II-12 (reprinted in Petitioner

Prehearing Brief, Ex. 19).

14

concerning the nature of *** processing activities.72 Consequently, we again find that *** does not

engage in sufficient activities to be considered a domestic producer.

*** – The record indicates that, during the period examined, *** engaged in cooking.73 As stated

above, the Commission concluded in the preliminary determination that cooking was sufficient activity to

constitute domestic production. It consequently found that *** was a domestic producer.74 We make the

same finding for purposes of this final determination.

*** – The only processing activity which *** identified in its preliminary questionnaire response

was breading.75 The final phase verification report of *** indicates that the company performs processing

activities in addition to breading, however.76 Information obtained during the Commission staff’s on-site

verification indicates that *** performs activities including washing, sorting, grading, peeling, deveining,

removing the tail, packaging, and freezing of the shrimp it purchases.77 These activities are of the type

the Commission determined in the preliminary determination constituted domestic production. We

consequently find that *** engages in sufficient activities to be a domestic producer. 

*** – The record indicates that, during the period examined, Singleton engaged in hand peeling,

breading, butterflying/other special cutting, cooking, and rebagging/relabeling.78 As previously stated,

the Commission has determined that cooking constitutes domestic production. On this basis, we find that

*** engages in sufficient production-related activity to be considered a domestic producer. 

*** – The record indicates that during the period examined, *** engaged in grading, deheading,

hand peeling, deveining, breading, butterflying/other special cutting, cooking, marinating/saucing, and

skewering.79 As previously discussed, the Commission found in its preliminary determination that

grading, deheading, deveining, and cooking were all activities that constituted domestic production. 

Accordingly, we find that *** engages in sufficient production-related activities to be a domestic

producer.

Conclusion. Of the domestic processors that petitioner has targeted, we find that *** engage in

insufficient production-related activity to be considered domestic producers. We conclude that *** do

perform sufficient production-related activities to be considered domestic producers. 
 80 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 81 Allied Mineral Products, Inc. v. United States, Slip Op. 04-139 at 9 (Ct. Int’l Trade Nov. 12, 2004); Sandvik

AB v. United States, 721 F. Supp. 1322, 1331-32 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1989), aff’d without opinion, 904 F.2d 46 (Fed.

Cir. 1990). The primary factors the Commission has examined in deciding whether appropriate circumstances exist

to exclude the related parties include: (1) the percentage of domestic production attributable to the importing

producer; (2) the reason the U.S. producer has decided to import the product subject to investigation, i.e., whether

the firm benefits from the LTFV sales or subsidies or whether the firm must import in order to enable it to continue

production and compete in the U.S. market; and (3) the position of the related producers vis-a-vis the rest of the

industry, i.e., whether inclusion or exclusion of the related party will skew the data for the rest of the industry. See,

e.g., Torrington Co. v. United States, 790 F. Supp. 1161, 1168 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1992), aff’d without opinion, 991

F.2d 809 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Commission has also considered the ratio of import shipments to U.S. production for

related producers and whether the primary interests of the related producers lie in domestic production or in

importation. See, e.g., Melamine Institutional Dinnerware from China, Indonesia, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA741-743 (Final), USITC Pub. 3016 (Feb. 1997) at 14, n.81.

 82 See CR/PR, Tables III-7, IV-1. While *** also imported subject merchandise during the period examined, we

have concluded that these firms are not domestic producers. Consequently, we need not consider whether

appropriate circumstances exist to exclude them from the domestic industry pursuant to the related parties provision.

 83 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(i). *** additionally would be subject to exclusion of the related parties provision

pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii)(I) because ***. CR/PR, Table III-2.

 84 CR/PR, Tables III-2, IV-1.

 85 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B)(ii)(III).

 86 ASDA’s arguments, which also addressed ***, were directed solely to these processors’ use of subject imports

vis a vis their use of nonsubject imports. This is not a factor that the Commission traditionally considers in its

related party analysis, and ASDA did not explain why the Commission should deviate from its customary practice in

these investigations.

15

2. Related Parties

In defining the domestic industry, we must further determine whether any producer of the

domestic like product should be excluded from the domestic industry pursuant to section 771(4)(B) of the

Act. That provision of the statute allows the Commission, if appropriate circumstances exist, to exclude

producers from the domestic industry that are related to an exporter or importer of subject merchandise or

which are themselves importers.80 Exclusion of a related or importing producer is within the

Commission’s discretion based upon the facts presented in each case.81

Six domestic producers that completed domestic processors’ questionnaires imported subject

merchandise during the period examined. These are ***.82 As importers of subject merchandise, these

entities are potentially subject to exclusion from the domestic industry pursuant to the related parties

provision.83 

A seventh entity, ***, has the same stockholders as ***, which imports subject merchandise from

multiple subject countries.84 Because both *** and *** have common control from the same

stockholders, *** is potentially subject to exclusion from the domestic industry pursuant to the related

parties provision.85

Petitioner contends that appropriate circumstances exist for the exclusion of *** pursuant to the

related parties provision. ASDA asserts that appropriate circumstances do not exist for the exclusion of

***.86

No party asserts that appropriate circumstances exist for the exclusion of ***. These firms will

be called the “non-targeted producers.”
 87 See CR/PR, Table III-7.

 88 CR/PR, Appendix Table I-4.

 89 CR/PR, Tables III-2, III-7.

 90 Confidential Preliminary Determination at 29-30.

 91 CR/PR, Table III-7.

 92 Confidential Preliminary Determination at 30.

 93 CR/PR, Table III-7.

 94 CR/PR, Table III-2.

 95 CR/PR, Table III-7.

 96 Confidential Preliminary Determination at 30.

 97 CR/PR, Table III-7.

 98 CR/PR, Tables III-2, III-7.

 99 CR/PR, Appendix Table I-4. The operating ratios reported for *** reflect adjustments staff made after

verification.

16

We now consider whether appropriate circumstances exist for each of the processors subject for

exclusion pursuant to the related parties provision.

***. The quantity of subject imports imported by *** greatly exceeds its domestic production,

which ***.87 Meanwhile, *** had among the best operating performance during the period examined of

the processors that submitted financial data.88 *** the petition and states that it imported subject

merchandise for several reasons, including ***89 The data indicate that *** has essentially no current

interest in domestic production and that its importation activities shield it from any injury that might be

caused by the subject imports. The Commission found in the preliminary determination that appropriate

circumstances existed for the exclusion of ***.90 We make the same finding here.

***. The ratio of subject imports to domestic production varied for *** during the period

examined, but was highest during the latter portions of the period. The ratio was *** in 2003 and ***

percent during January-June (interim) 2004.91 In the preliminary determination, the Commission

considered the quantity of *** purchases of subject imports as well as its direct imports.92 The ratio of the

sum of *** subject imports and purchases of subject imports to its production was *** percent in 2002,

*** percent in 2003, *** percent in interim 2003, and *** percent in interim 2004.93 *** the petition.94 It

states that it imports subject merchandise due to ***.95

In the preliminary determination, the Commission found that appropriate circumstances existed to

exclude *** from the domestic industry notwithstanding that its operating performance was not

substantially different than the industry average. In particular, the Commission found that *** high ratio

of imports and purchases of subject imports to production, as well as its ***, indicate that its principal

interest is not in domestic production.96 The record here supports the same conclusion. Consequently, we

again find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry.

***. *** had very high ratios of subject imports to domestic production during the period

examined.97 It *** the petition and states that it imports subject merchandise for ***.98 Its operating

performance has been extremely variable. The firm was ***.99 *** presents some similarities to ***,

except that it has even larger ratios of subject imports to domestic production. The same considerations

that support exclusion of *** pursuant to the related parties provision also support our finding that

appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry.
 100 CR at III-1 n.3, PR at III-1 n.3. 

 101 *** preliminary phase questionnaire indicated that it cooked *** pounds of shrimp annually. (However, based

on the processors’ final phase questionnaire, it is likely that the amount of shrimp it cooked was actually ***

pounds). See *** Preliminary Phase Processors’ Questionnaire, response to question II-12; *** Processors’

Questionnaire, response to question II-9. By contrast, Singleton imported *** pounds of subject merchandise in

2001, *** pounds in 2003, and *** pounds in interim 2004. *** Importers’ Questionnaire, response to Question II-5.

 102 *** Importers’ Questionnaire, response to Question II-4.

 103 CR/PR, Table III-2.

 104 Because *** related party status is based on its common ownership with ***, we compared *** production

reported in its processors’ questionnaire to *** imports of subject merchandise reported in its importers’

questionnaire. The ratio of *** subject imports to *** domestic production was *** percent in 2002, *** percent in

2003, *** percent in interim 2003, and *** percent in interim 2004.

 105 CR/PR, Table III-2.

 106 CR/PR, Appendix Table I-4.

 107 CR/PR, Table III-7.

 108 CR/PR, Table III-7, Appendix Table I-1.

 109 CR/PR, Table III-7, Appendix Table I-1.

 110 CR/PR, Table III-2.

 111 Confidential Preliminary Determination at 30-31.

17

***. *** did not submit usable trade or financial data to the Commission.100 The data in the

record concerning *** domestic production activities indicate that these activities involve relatively small

quantities of product, while *** has imported far greater quantities of subject merchandise during the

period examined.101 *** did not indicate why it imported subject merchandise when it also produced

product, calling the question ***.102 *** on the petition.103 The limited information in the record

indicates that *** has a minimal domestic production presence, both on an absolute basis and in

comparison to its importation activities. Because *** principal interest is in importation, rather than

domestic production, we find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the domestic

industry.

***. *** domestic production is dwarfed by the subject imports of its affiliate, ***.104 It *** the

petition.105 Its financial performance during the period examined was better than the industry average.106

The record thus indicates that the principal interest of the *** corporate combination is in importation, not

domestic production, and that these firms’ subject importation activities benefit them financially. We

consequently find that appropriate circumstances exist to exclude *** from the domestic industry.

Non-Targeted Processors. Both (***) had low ratios of subject imports to domestic production. 

While each of these firms also purchased subject imports, the ratio to domestic production of the sum of

direct importation and purchases of subject imports never exceeded *** for any portion of the period

examined.107 ***, which stated that it imported ***, had operating performances slightly above industry

averages.108 While *** states that it imports subject merchandise for ***, its operating performance is

well below the industry average.109 Each firm *** the petition.110 The Commission found in the

preliminary determination that appropriate circumstances did not exist to exclude either firm from the

domestic industry on the basis that each firm’s principal interest is in domestic production, and that

neither firm has derived significant financial benefits from its importation activities.111 The record in

these final phase investigations similarly supports such a finding. We consequently find that appropriate

circumstances do not exist to exclude either *** from the domestic industry.
 112 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that in light of the foregoing discussion, they define the

domestic industry producing certain warmwater shrimp to consist of: (1) all entities that harvest fresh warmwater

shrimp (i.e., fishermen and shrimp farmers) and (2) all processors of shrimp products within the scope definition

except for ***.

 113 In these investigations, subject imports of frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam each accounted for more than three percent of the volume of all imports into the United

States in the most recent 12-month period for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition. See

Official Import Statistics. As such, we find that frozen shrimp imports from each of the subject countries are not

negligible under 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24). 

 114 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the certain non-canned warmwater shrimp domestic like

product defined by their colleagues accounted in 2003 for at least *** percent of domestic production of the certain

warmwater shrimp domestic like product that they have defined, CR/PR, Table III-2, and the subject imports

corresponding to their colleagues’ definition of the domestic like product account for 99.6 percent of all subject

imports. CR/PR, Tables IV-4, D-1. Accordingly, the cumulation discussion below is equally pertinent to the

domestic like product that Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane have defined.

 115 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(i). None of the statutory exceptions to cumulation applies to our analysis of the

domestic like product encompassing certain non-canned warmwater shrimp. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(ii).

18

3. Conclusion

In light of the foregoing discussion, the domestic industry producing certain non-canned

warmwater shrimp consists of: (1) all entities that harvest fresh warmwater shrimp (i.e., fishermen and

shrimp farmers) and (2) all processors of frozen shrimp products within the scope definition except for

***.112

B. Cumulation113 114

1. In General

For purposes of evaluating the volume and price effects for a determination of material injury by

reason of the subject imports, section 771(7)(G)(i) of the Act requires the Commission to cumulate

subject imports from all countries as to which petitions were filed and/or investigations self-initiated by

Commerce on the same day, if such imports compete with each other and with domestic like products in

the U.S. market.115 In assessing whether subject imports compete with each other and with the domestic

like product, the Commission has generally considered four factors, including:

(1) the degree of fungibility between the subject imports from different countries and

between imports and the domestic like product, including consideration of specific

customer requirements and other quality related questions;

(2) the presence of sales or offers to sell in the same geographic markets of subject

imports from different countries and the domestic like product;

(3) the existence of common or similar channels of distribution for subject imports

from different countries and the domestic like product; and
 116 See Certain Cast-Iron Pipe Fittings from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan, Inv. Nos. 731-TA-278-

280 (Final), USITC Pub. 1845 (May 1986), aff'd, Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898 (Ct. Int'l

Trade), aff'd, 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

 117 See, e.g., Wieland Werke, AG v. United States, 718 F. Supp. 50 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1989).

 118 The Statement of Administrative Action for the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“SAA”) expressly states that

“the new section will not affect current Commission practice under which the statutory requirement is satisfied if

there is a reasonable overlap of competition.” SAA, H.R. 316, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., vol. I at 848 (1994), citing

Fundicao Tupy, S.A. v. United States, 678 F. Supp. 898, 902 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1988), aff'd 859 F.2d 915 (Fed. Cir.

1988). See Goss Graphic System, Inc. v. United States, 33 F. Supp. 2d 1082,1087 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998)

(“cumulation does not require two products to be highly fungible”); Mukand Ltd., 937 F. Supp. at 916; Wieland

Werke, AG, 718 F. Supp. at 52 (“Completely overlapping markets are not required.”).

 119 Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 64-68.

 120 ASDA Prehearing Brief at 9.

 121 Commissioner Hillman notes that the Commission determined to proceed with its vote on imports of shrimp

from all six subject countries, despite the fact that the tsunami of December 26, 2004 may have significantly

impacted the shrimp industries in India and/or Thailand. Given the timing and the extreme severity of the tsunami,

parties were not in a position to know at the time they filed their final comments what effect, if any, the tsunami

may have had on the shrimp industry in either of these two countries. Commissioner Hillman noted at the time of

the Commission’s vote that she would have preferred to have delayed for a short time the Commission’s votes so

that information could be collected on the impact, if any, of the tsunami on shrimp producers in India and Thailand,

their inventories and their ability to export shrimp to the U.S. This information may have had an impact on a number

of the four factors Commissioner Hillman examines in determining whether it is appropriate to cumulate imports

from each of the subject countries and whether a “reasonable overlap in competition” between imports from India

and/or Thailand and imports from the other four subject countries existed at the time of vote in these investigations.

19

(4) whether the subject imports are simultaneously present in the market.116

While no single factor is necessarily determinative, and the list of factors is not exclusive, these

factors are intended to provide the Commission with a framework for determining whether the subject

imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product.117 Only a “reasonable overlap” of

competition is required.118

2. Analysis

Petitioner contends that the Commission should cumulate imports from all six subject countries

for its analysis of material injury by reason of subject imports.119 ASDA was the sole respondent to

address in its briefs cumulation for material injury analysis with respect to certain non-canned warmwater

shrimp. It states that it does not contest the cumulation of subject imports.120 121

The threshold for cumulation is satisfied because petitioner filed a petition with respect to each of

the six subject countries on the same day. We next examine the four factors that the Commission

customarily considers in determining whether there is a reasonable overlap of competition.

Fungibility. Questionnaire data indicate that market participants perceive at least some degree of

overlap in the applications for which the domestic like product and imports from the subject countries are

used. However, perceptions of product interchangeability varied markedly among different types of

market participants. Majorities of purchasers ranging from 62 percent (U.S.-Vietnam) to 100 percent

(U.S.-Brazil) found that domestically-produced shrimp and imports from individual subject countries

were at least sometimes interchangeable. The ratio of purchasers finding imports from individual subject

countries at least sometimes interchangeable with each other ranged from 71 percent (Brazil/India) to 100
 122 CR/PR, Table II-3. Because virtually all domestically processed shrimp and subject imports are frozen rather

than canned, the data in the Commission report are applicable to the domestic like product consisting of certain noncanned warmwater shrimp. Indeed, all purchasers that responded to the Commission’s questionnaire purchased

frozen warmwater shrimp.

 123 CR/PR, Table II-1.

 124 CR/PR, Table II-2.

 125 CR/PR, Table V-2.

 126 CR at II-2, PR at II-1.

 127 See CR/PR, Table IV-8; Petitioner Prehearing Brief, chart 3.

 128 CR at I-12, II-1, PR at I-10, II-1.

 129 CR/PR, Table II-6.

 130 CR/PR, Tables IV-1, IV-9. See also Petitioner Prehearing Brief, chart 4.

20

percent (four comparisons).122 By contrast, a majority of U.S. processors stated that domestically

produced product was always interchangeable with imports from each of the subject countries. A

majority also reported that imports from each possible subject country combination were always

interchangeable.123 Importers stated that domestically produced product was interchangeable with

product from subject sources less frequently than either purchasers or U.S. processors. In comparing

domestically produced shrimp to subject imports from Vietnam, 53 percent of responding importers stated

that the products were never interchangeable. In every other comparison of domestically produced

product to imports from a particular subject country, between 57 and 79 percent of importers found that

the products were at least sometimes interchangeable. The ratio of importers reporting that imports from

different subject country combinations were at least sometimes interchangeable ranged from a low of 71

percent (for Ecuador/India) to a high of 100 percent (Brazil/Ecuador and Thailand/Vietnam).124 Pricing

data for both domestically-produced product and imports from each subject country were available for six

of the nine frozen shrimp pricing products on which the Commission collected data.125

Geographic Overlap. The overwhelming majority of both U.S. processors and importers of

subject merchandise reported that they serve either a national market or multiple regions within the

United States.126 Imports from each of the subject countries entered the United States in substantial

quantities throughout the period examined at ports in the East, Gulf, and West regions.127

Channels of Distribution. Both the domestic like product and the subject imports are sold to

distributors and to retail customers such as grocers and restaurants.128 The record indicates that numerous

market participants such as distributors, grocers, and restaurateurs purchase both domestically produced

shrimp and imports from several different subject countries.129

Simultaneous Presence. Imports from each of the subject countries have been present in the U.S.

market throughout the period examined.130

Conclusion. Although market participants do not have uniform views concerning the

interchangeability of the domestic like product and the subject imports, a majority of market participants

found the domestically produced product at least sometimes interchangeable with imports from each

subject country except in one comparison by importers, and even in that comparison a substantial

minority found the domestic like product and the subject imports at least sometimes interchangeable. 

Majorities of all market participants found imports from different subject countries at least somewhat

interchangeable. Moreover, the purchaser data and pricing information in the record indicate that there is

an overlap of purchasers and product types both between domestically processed frozen shrimp and

frozen shrimp imports from each subject country and among imports from each of the subject countries. 

Particularly given that respondents have not challenged the appropriateness of cumulation for material
 131 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane cumulate imports from all six subject countries for purposes of

their analysis of material injury by reason of subject imports for the domestic like product consisting of certain

warmwater shrimp.

 132 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b).

 133 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B)( i). The Commission “may consider such other economic factors as are relevant to

the determination” but shall “identify each [such] factor . . . [a]nd explain in full its relevance to the determination.” 

19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(B). See also Angus Chemical Co. v. United States, 140 F.3d 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

 134 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(A).

 135 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii).

 136 Id.

 137 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(i).

21

injury analysis, the record indicates that the domestically produced frozen shrimp and frozen shrimp

imports from the six subject countries are sufficiently similar in characteristics to satisfy the fungibility

criterion. The criteria concerning channels of distribution, geographic overlap, and simultaneous

presence are clearly satisfied. Accordingly, we cumulate imports from all six subject countries for

purposes of our analysis of material injury by reason of subject imports for the domestic like product

consisting of certain non-canned warmwater shrimp.131

C. Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

1. Legal Standards

In the final phase of antidumping or countervailing duty investigations, the Commission

determines whether an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of the imports under

investigation.132 In making this determination, the Commission must consider the volume of imports,

their effect on prices for the domestic like product, and their impact on domestic producers of the

domestic like product, but only in the context of U.S. production operations.133 The statute defines

“material injury” as “harm which is not inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant.”134 In assessing

whether the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.135 No single factor is

dispositive, and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and

conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”136

Section 771(7)(C)(i) of the Act provides that the “Commission shall consider whether the volume

of imports of the merchandise, or any increase in that volume, either in absolute terms or relative to

production or consumption in the United States, is significant.”137

Section 771(7)(C)(ii) of the Act provides that, in evaluating the price effects of the subject

imports, the Commission shall consider whether –

 (I) there has been significant price underselling by the imported merchandise as

compared with the price of domestic like products of the United States, and

(II) the effect of imports of such merchandise otherwise depresses prices to a

significant degree or prevents price increases, which otherwise would have

occurred, to a significant degree.
 138 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). See also SAA at 851 and 885 (“In material injury determinations, the

Commission considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be contributing to overall injury. While these

factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the domestic industry, they also may demonstrate that an

industry is facing difficulties from a variety of sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”).

 139 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(C)(iii). See also SAA at 851 and 885 and Live Cattle from Canada and Mexico, Inv. Nos.

701-TA-386 and 731-TA-812-813 (Preliminary), USITC Pub. 3155 (Feb. 1999) at 25, n.148.

 140 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that, unless otherwise indicated, the remaining discussion in

section III of the opinion is also applicable to the certain warmwater shrimp domestic like product that they have

defined.

 141 CR/PR, Table C-2. U.S. production data used to compute apparent consumption were derived from official

statistics of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program. These statistics

encompass both wild catch landings and farmed production. Consequently, they include both fresh and processed

warmwater shrimp. Shipments of U.S.-produced canned warmwater shrimp were then deducted from this total.

Consequently, the data correspond to our definition of the certain non-canned warmwater shrimp domestic like

product.

 142 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that these trends are also applicable for certain warmwater

shrimp. Indeed, there is little difference between the public data concerning U.S. apparent consumption of

certain warmwater shrimp and the proprietary data concerning U.S. apparent consumption of certain noncanned warmwater shrimp. U.S. apparent consumption increased from 1.01 billion pounds in 2001 to

1.05 billion pounds in 2002 and then to 1.21 billion pounds in 2003. Interim 2004 U.S. apparent

consumption of 519 million pounds was greater than interim 2003 U.S. apparent consumption of 456

million pounds. CR/PR, Table IV-5.

 143 CR at II-14, PR at II-9.

22

In examining the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, we consider all relevant

economic factors that bear on the state of the industry in the United States.138 These factors include

output, sales, inventories, capacity utilization, market share, employment, wages, productivity, profits,

cash flow, return on investment, ability to raise capital, and research and development. No single factor is

dispositive and all relevant factors are considered “within the context of the business cycle and conditions

of competition that are distinctive to the affected industry.”139

2. Conditions of Competition

Several conditions of competition are pertinent to our analysis of the domestic industry producing

certain non-canned warmwater shrimp.140

a. Demand Conditions

U.S. apparent consumption of certain non-canned warmwater shrimp increased during the period

for which the Commission collected data for the final phase investigations, which encompasses the period

January 2001 through June 2004. U.S. apparent consumption increased from *** pounds in 2001 to ***

pounds in 2002 and then to *** pounds in 2003. Interim 2004 U.S. apparent consumption of *** pounds

was greater than interim 2003 U.S. apparent consumption of *** pounds.141 142 Processors generally cited

lower prices as the reason for increased consumption, while importers were more likely to attribute

increased consumption to an increase in demand brought about by factors such as increased health

consciousness, wider availability, and increased marketing activities.143

As stated above, warmwater shrimp is generally used in meal preparations. U.S. demand for

certain non-canned warmwater shrimp comes from retail sellers of both prepared and unprepared products
 144 CR at II-12-13, PR at II-8-9.

 145 Petitioner Hearing Ex. 27.

 146 See CR at III-1, PR at III-1. Of the firms that provided usable data in response to the processors’ questionnaire

that have not been included in the Commission’s database, two have been excluded because they do not engage in

sufficient domestic production-related activities, four have been excluded pursuant to the related parties provision,

and one firm processes only canned warmwater shrimp.

 147 The data on which Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane rely pertaining to the domestic industry

processing certain warmwater shrimp encompass questionnaire responses from 31 processors. These include the 30

processors on which the majority relies and the single domestic canner.

 148 CR/PR, Table IV-4. Deduction of the very small volume of canned shrimp production would not change these

percentages materially.

 149 CR at I-11-12, PR at I-9.

 150 CR at II-3, PR at II-2. Frozen shrimp may be consumed up to two years after it has been processed. Petitioner

Posthearing Brief, Ex. 21, ¶ 3.

 151 CR at II-6, VII-1 n.1, PR at II-4, VII-1 n.1.

 152 CR at II-8-9, PR at II-5.

23

– which are typically grocers – and from restaurants. Restaurants account for an estimated 80 percent of

total U.S. consumption.144

b. Supply Conditions

Numerous firms engage in the harvesting or processing of certain non-canned warmwater shrimp

in the United States. Although there are not authoritative data on the total number of commercial

shrimping licenses held in the United States, information presented by petitioner indicates that in 2003

there were over 16,000 holders of commercial fishing licenses in four Gulf states.145 The petition

identified 125 firms as domestic processors of warmwater shrimp. Thirty-seven firms provided usable

trade and/or financial data in response to the Commission’s processors’ questionnaire. The data below

pertaining to the domestic industry that processes certain non-canned warmwater shrimp are based on 30

of these responses.146 147

Domestically-produced shrimp is overwhelmingly wild caught. During the period examined,

wild-catch landings accounted for between 94 percent and 97 percent of total U.S. warmwater shrimp

production.148 Environmental concerns, high land costs in coastal areas, and a limited growing season

limit the ability to expand shrimp farming in the United States.149

Warmwater shrimp are harvested from the Gulf of Mexico, and to a lesser extent from the

Atlantic Coast between the Carolinas and Florida. Harvesting is seasonal, with the main fishing season

occurring between May and December. Processors freeze part of their in-season inventory for sales offseason.150

The vast majority of the subject imports, by contrast, is farmed.151 Supply of the subject imports,

when considered in the aggregate, is less seasonal than that of domestically-harvested shrimp. Although

there is some degree of seasonality in the supply of particular sizes and/or species from individual subject

countries, purchasers can generally obtain imports from another subject country when one country’s

season ends or its supply is interrupted. Purchasers described the subject imports as more likely to be

available the entire year than domestically produced shrimp.152
 153 CR/PR, Table C-2. Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane rely on the data at CR/PR, Table IV-5 in

making the same finding.

 154 CR/PR, Table C-2. 

 155 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the percentage of U.S. apparent consumption

of certain warmwater shrimp represented by nonsubject imports ranged from a low of *** percent in 2003

to a high of *** percent in interim 2004. CR/PR, Table IV-5.

 156 CR/PR, Table C-2. Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane have relied on the data in CR/PR, Table IV-5

in making the same finding.

 157 Tr. at 114 (Appelbaum); China Coalition Prehearing Brief at 7.

 158 Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 9, ¶¶ 6-9; Ex. 10, ¶¶ 23-27. Respondent witnesses emphasized that the

subject imports serve such customers. Tr. at 229 (Herzig), 239 (Mentzer).

 159 Memorandum of John Benedetto, Commission economist, to File (Dec. 16, 2004).

 160 CR/PR, Table II-6. 

 161 CR/PR, Table II-3.

 162 See CR/PR, Table E-1, Tr. at 229 (Herzig), 237 (Redmond), 240-45 (Mentzer). 

24

During the period examined, subject imports accounted for the majority of U.S. apparent

consumption.153 The next largest source of supply was from nonsubject sources. The share of the

quantity of U.S. apparent consumption of certain non-canned warmwater shrimp represented by

nonsubject imports ranged from a low of *** percent in 2003 to a high of *** percent in interim 2004.154

155 The domestic industry supplied a smaller share of the market than either subject imports or nonsubject

imports.156 The parties agree that the quantity of warmwater shrimp available from U.S. fisheries is

insufficient to meet demand for the product.157

c. Interchangeability Considerations

The record contains information indicating that both domestically processed frozen shrimp

products and the subject imports are sold to similar types of customers for the same applications. 

Petitioner has presented declarations from domestic processors indicating that during the period examined

they have sold appreciable quantities of their products to customers including large food service

distributors, large chain restaurants, and breaders.158 Indeed, one of the large food distributors named in

petitioner’s declarations, *** confirmed to Commission staff that it sells both products containing

domestically processed shrimp and products containing the subject imports ***.159

Information compiled in the purchasers’ questionnaires confirms that the same entities purchase

both domestically processed product and the subject imports. Of the 30 purchasers that provided

information concerning the matter, 25 indicated that they purchased both domestically processed product

and subject imports in 2003 and/or interim 2004.160

We acknowledge that these purchasers had mixed perceptions about the interchangeability

between domestically processed shrimp and the subject imports. As explained in section III.B.2. above,

however, majorities of purchasers reported that domestically processed shrimp was at least somewhat

interchangeable with imports from each of the six subject countries.161 

Comments about lack of substitutability were also reflected in both questionnaire responses and

hearing testimony in which purchasers indicated perceptions that domestically processed frozen shrimp

was inferior to the subject imports in non-price characteristics such as availability, consistency, handling,

product range, and reliability.162 We do not question the credibility of these reports. Nevertheless, there
 163 Tr. at 230 (Herzig), 235 (Redmond), 240 (Mentzer).

 164 CR at II-31, PR at II-21.

 165 This fact, however, does not detract from our finding in section III.C.3 below that subject imports displaced

the domestic like product during the period examined.

Commissioner Pearson does not join this footnote.

 166 See, e.g., ASDA Prehearing Brief at 2; Tr. at 46 (Connelly), 393 (Connelly).

25

are several reasons why they do not provide a sufficient basis for the finding sought by respondents that

domestically processed shrimp and subject imports are highly differentiated products.

First, the testimony and questionnaire responses cannot negate the information on the record

indicating overlaps in purchasers between domestically processed shrimp and the subject imports. 

Indeed, the three purchasers that testified on respondents’ behalf during the hearing indicated that they

purchase some domestically processed product.163 While these purchasers admittedly testified that the

domestically processed product they purchased was not necessarily used interchangeably with the subject

imports they purchased, this is not the case for all purchasers. As indicated above, other purchasers

perceive domestically processed shrimp and the subject imports to be interchangeable and in fact use

them for the same applications.

Second, most responding producers indicate that they require approval of suppliers for either a

substantial portion or all of their purchases. Over 60 percent of responding suppliers with approval

requirements (19 of 30) reported that no suppliers failed to receive approval.164 Given that the

overwhelming majority of reporting purchasers indicated purchases of U.S.-processed product, these data

indicate that the domestically processed product satisfies purchaser approval standards with at least some

frequency.

Third, purchasers’ comments on factors such as availability and product range to some extent

reflect that the supply of domestically processed product is subject to greater constraints than are the

subject imports as a whole. Because it is not disputed that the domestic industry cannot supply sufficient

product to satisfy all U.S. demand, it is not surprising that in some instances purchasers report that subject

imports are superior in factors such as availability, product range, and reliability of delivery.165

Fourth, the purchasers’ testimony and comments establish at most that some large-volume

purchasers may have applications in which the subject imports may be used for which domestically

processed product may not be substituted. There is nothing on the record that indicates that there are any

significant applications for which only the domestically processed product may be used for which the

subject imports may not be substituted. To the contrary, as discussed further below, a major thrust of

respondents’ presentation in these investigations has been to fault the domestic industry for failing to

develop such applications, such as positioning their product as a “premium” wild-caught product.166 This

consideration also undercuts the notion that the domestically processed product and the subject imports

are highly differentiated products.

Even taking into account purchasers’ perceptions of non-price differences between domestically

processed shrimp and the subject imports, the record indicates that purchasers generally perceive these

products are at least somewhat interchangeable, that many of the same entities purchase both subject

imports and domestically processed product, and that purchasers acquire U.S.-processed product for the

same uses that they acquire the subject imports. In light of this, we find that domestically processed

certain non-canned warmwater shrimp and the subject imports are at least moderate substitutes. 
 167 Commissioner Pearson does not join section III.C.3. of the opinion. See Additional Views of Commissioner

Pearson.

 168 CR/PR, Table C-2. The subject imports are exclusively frozen products.

 169 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the quantity of cumulated subject imports of certain

warmwater shrimp increased from *** pounds in 2001 to *** pounds in 2002 to *** pounds in 2003. Cumulated

subject import quantity was higher in interim 2004, when it was *** pounds, than in interim 2003, when it was ***

pounds. CR/PR, Table IV-4.

 170 CR/PR, Table C-2.

 171 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the share of U.S. apparent consumption of certain

warmwater shrimp held by cumulated subject imports increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002 and

then to *** percent in 2003. Interim 2004 subject import market penetration of *** percent was below interim 2003

market penetration of *** percent. CR/PR, Table IV-5.

 172 ASDA Prehearing Brief at 75.

 173 We also note that the ratio of cumulated subject imports to domestic production increased each year from 2001

to 2003 and was higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003. CR/PR, Table C-2. Chairman Koplan and

Commissioner Lane have relied on the data in CR/PR, Table IV-6 in making the same finding.

 174 CR/PR, Table C-2.

 175 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the share of U.S. apparent consumption held by the

domestic like product, as they have defined it, declined from 15.3 percent in 2001 to 13.2 percent in 2002 and then to

12.0 percent in 2003. Domestic producers’ 8.6 percent share of U.S. apparent consumption in interim 2004 was

lower than their 10.2 percent share in interim 2003. CR/PR, Table IV-5.

26

3. Volume of the Subject Imports167

The quantity of subject imports increased throughout the period examined. The quantity of

cumulated subject imports of certain non-canned warmwater shrimp increased from *** pounds in 2001

to *** pounds in 2002 to *** pounds in 2003. Cumulated subject import quantity was higher in interim

2004, when it was *** pounds, than in interim 2003, when it was *** pounds.168 169

Market penetration of cumulated subject imports also increased throughout the period examined. 

The share of U.S. apparent consumption of certain non-frozen warmwater shrimp held by cumulated

subject imports of frozen warmwater shrimp increased from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002

and then to *** percent in 2003. Interim 2004 subject import market penetration of *** percent was

below interim 2003 market penetration of *** percent.170 171 Respondents acknowledge that the interim

period decline in market penetration was to some degree a function of the filing of the petition in these

investigations.172 173

The increases in subject import market penetration came largely at the expense of domestic

producers. The share of U.S. apparent consumption of certain non-canned warmwater shrimp held by

U.S. producers declined from 15.2 percent in 2001 to 13.1 percent in 2002 and then to 11.9 percent in

2003. Domestic producers’ 8.4 percent share in interim 2004 was lower than their 10.1 percent share in

interim 2003.174 175

We do not agree with respondents that the increase in the market penetration of the cumulated

subject imports relative to that of U.S. producers is simply a function of U.S. processors being unable to

provide any more product than U.S. shrimp fisheries will yield. We observe initially that although from

2002 to 2003 the supply of fresh U.S. shrimp increased by 8.2 percent and U.S. apparent consumption

increased by an even greater percentage, the U.S. shipments of those processors we have included in the
 176 CR/PR, Tables IV-5, C-2, C-3. 

 177 CR/PR, Tables IV-5, C-3.

 178 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that this is also true for the domestic industry they have

defined. From 2001 to 2003, the U.S. shipments of those processors in the domestic industry producing certain

warmwater shrimp declined. From 2002 to 2003, these processors’ U.S. shipments increased by *** percent. 

CR/PR, Table III-6.

 179 CR/PR, Table IV-4.

 180 CR/PR, Table F-2.

 181 The 2004 hurricane season began after June 30, 2004 and thus could not have affected the interim period data. 

See Petitioner Posthearing Brief at B-65.

 182 Respondent economic witness Dr. Chad Bown presented an economic model (“the Kelly model”) purporting

to show that any volume of domestic production displaced by imports was minimal. We find Dr. Bown’s analysis to

be flawed because the Kelly model used by Dr. Bown does not address the inquiry posed by the statute, which

concerns the volume of subject imports and not imports in general. See Tr. at 267 (Bown). 

 183 Chairman Koplan, Vice Chairman Okun, and Commissioner Lane note that the results yielded by the model

used by Dr. Bown are to a great extent dependent upon the inputs used. Dr. Bown used several elasticities,

particularly concerning the elasticity of U.S. supply and the elasticity of substitution, that differ sharply from those

estimated by the Commission’s economic staff. Compare CR at II-42-43, PR at II-26-27 with ASDA Prehearing

Brief, Ex. 10 at 57-58. Chairman Koplan, Vice Chairman Okun, and Commissioner Lane disagree with Dr. Bown’s

estimate of the elasticity of U.S. supply for the reasons stated in the Commission report. See CR at II-42 & n.58, PR

at II-26 & n.58. His estimate of the elasticity of substitution is flawed for the reasons stated in section III.C.2.c.

above.

 184 Because the “Kelly model” economic analysis presented by Dr. Bown does not address the question posed by

the statute as to the impact of the volume of subject imports, Commissioners Miller and Hillman did not find it to be

useful in reaching their determination in these investigations. They do not find that a change to the elasticity inputs

used would have overcome this more basic flaw in the model.

 185 See China Coalition Prehearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 21-22.

27

domestic industry producing certain non-canned warmwater shrimp increased by only 4.4 percent.176

During the period 2001 to 2003, these U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments declined while the U.S. supply of

fresh shrimp increased.177 Consequently, the domestic industry was not able to increase its U.S.

shipments of frozen warmwater shrimp to the extent the supply of fresh shrimp increased.178 

Additionally, wild-catch landings of U.S. fishermen were sharply lower in interim 2004 than they

were in interim 2003.179 Data collected in response to the Commission’s fishermen’s questionnaire

indicate that the number of days fishing boats were at sea was lower in interim 2004 than in interim

2003.180 The record does not indicate that these declines were due to natural factors.181 Rather, as

explained further below, it indicates that the declines were due to reduced fishing effort attributable to the

very low prices which precluded fishermen from operating profitably. We view the interim 2004 declines

in both fishing effort and output as additional evidence that the subject imports have to some extent

displaced supplies of shrimp of domestic origin in the U.S. market notwithstanding increasing

consumption.182 183 184

Certain respondents contend that the increase in subject import volume and market penetration

simply reflected that the subject imports “created a new market” and supplied new channels of

distribution.185 This argument cannot be reconciled with our finding above that the large and increasing

volume of subject imports has not merely satisfied increased demand, but in addition has displaced

domestic production as well. Furthermore, the record does not indicate that subject imports serve any

new markets or channels of distribution that were created during the period examined. At most, it
 186 Cf. ASDA Posthearing Brief at A-59 (noting that Red Lobster Restaurants have been serving shrimp dishes

since at least 1971); CR/PR, Table II-6.

 187 CR/PR, Table II-8.

 188 Tr. at 278 (Herzig), 280 (Redmond).

 189 Tr. at 299 (Herzig, Mentzer).

 190 CR/PR, Table II-8.

 191 This finding distinguishes these investigations from Fresh Cut Roses from Colombia and Ecuador, Inv. Nos.

731-TA-684-685 (Final), USITC Pub. 2862 (March 1995), aff’d sub nom. Floral Trade Council v. United States, 20

CIT 595 (1996), on which respondents heavily rely. In Roses, the Commission found limited price competition

between the domestic like product and the subject imports. Id. at I-21-24. Roses also found no evidence of price

depression. By contrast, in these investigations we find significant price depression for the reasons explained below.

 192 We do not find the contrary economic analysis (“the Armington model”) presented by the respondents’

economist, Dr. Bown, to be persuasive. The Armington model estimates the elasticity of substitution between

domestically processed shrimp and the subject imports. To derive this estimate, Dr. Bown used pricing data from

the Commission’s prehearing report that was based on responses to the processors’ and importers’ questionnaires. 

This pricing data may not give a complete picture of competition between domestically processed product and the

subject imports. Other information not reflected in the pricing data, such as that in the purchasers’ questionnaire

responses, is valuable in determining the elasticity of substitution. See CR at II-43 n.59, PR at II- 27 n.59; Petitioner

Posthearing Brief at A-3-7.

 193 Commissioners Miller and Hillman do not join the preceding footnote. They did not find the “Armington

model” economic analysis presented by Dr. Bown to be more persuasive than the data and other information in the

record of these investigations. They do not find that modifications to the elasticity estimates or other inputs would

have made the results of this model more relevant in their determination.

28

indicates that demand has increased from large purchasers (such as restaurant chains and food processors)

whose use of warmwater shrimp predated the period examined, and which have purchased warmwater

shrimp from domestic processors.186

We consequently find the volume of subject imports and the increase in that volume, both in

absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States, to be significant.

4. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

The record indicates that price is at least a moderately important consideration in purchasing

decisions. Purchasers listed price second most frequently as both the most important factor and the

second most important factor in purchasing decisions.187 Purchasers at the hearing similarly

acknowledged that, while price was not the sole consideration in their purchasing decisions, it was an

important factor.188 Purchasers also testified that they constantly monitor the market to stay apprised of

price trends.189

It is true that purchasers ranked quality above price as a purchasing factor.190 As we discussed in

section III.C.2.c., however, the record indicates that domestically processed shrimp and the subject

imports are at least moderate substitutes notwithstanding purchasers’ perceptions of the subject imports as

being superior in certain non-price characteristics. In light of our prior findings concerning both

substitutability and the importance of price in purchasing decisions, price will play a significant role – if

admittedly not the only role – in a purchaser’s decision whether to purchase a domestically processed

product or the subject imports.191 Moreover, changes in the price of the subject merchandise will affect

the prices of domestically processed shrimp to a significant degree.192 193
 194 CR/PR, Table V-2.

 195 The Commission collected pricing data for ten distinct products within the certain warmwater shrimp domestic

like product defined by Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane. The subject imports undersold the domestically

produced product in 332 of 568 quarterly comparisons, or 58.5 percent of all such comparisons. CR/PR, Table V-2.

 196 Pricing product 1 was frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns, all species, 71 to 90 count, raw, headless, peeled

(whether or not deveined), tail-off, block frozen (cut or not cut). CR at V-7, PR at V-6.

 197 Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 10, ¶ 30.

 198 See Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 10, ¶ 31; ASDA Prehearing Brief at 69.

 199 See CR/PR, Tables G-7-9. In fact, there were more observations of underselling than overselling for six of the

eight frozen shrimp pricing products for which comparisons can be made. CR/PR, Table V-2.

 200 Commissioner Pearson does not join this paragraph. See Additional Views of Commissioner Pearson.

 201 See ASDA Prehearing Brief at 70-71.

 202 There was additionally one confirmed lost sale. CR at V-12, PR at V-10. Respondents criticize the failure of

the petitioning firms to make a substantial number of lost sales allegations. Most processors, however, indicated that

they had difficulty supplying lost sales allegations because sales negotiations are usually conducted by telephone and

the competitors are not usually known. CR at V-12, PR at V-10. Confirmed lost sales and revenues, however, are

not a prerequisite to an affirmative determination. See, e.g., Makita Corp. v. United States, 974 F. Supp. 770, 789

(Ct. Int’l Trade 1997); Acciai Speciali Terni, S.p.A. v. United States, 19 CIT 1051, 1056 (1995). 

29

The Commission collected pricing data concerning nine frozen warmwater shrimp products. The

subject imports undersold the domestically processed product in 318 of 543 quarterly comparisons, or

58.6 percent of all such comparisons.194 195

We have considered respondents’ argument that the frequency of underselling varied dramatically

among the different pricing products for which the Commission collected data. Respondents particularly

emphasize that for pricing product 1, which featured the highest volume of domestic shipments of any of

the products, there was pervasive overselling. We have neither given controlling weight to the data for

product 1 nor disregarded it. Instead, in analyzing the data, we have taken into account that it

encompasses both deveined and undeveined product.196 The subject imports tend to be deveined, while

domestically processed product is overwhelmingly undeveined.197 The parties do not dispute that

deveined shrimp sell at a premium over undeveined shrimp.198 Consequently, the prices being compared

in product 1 are not for entirely comparable products.

Additionally, while pricing product 1 has higher quantities of domestically processed product

than do the other pricing products, it features lower quantities of subject imports than most of the other

frozen products. We note that for several pricing products where there were greater quantities of subject

imports and appreciable quantities of domestically processed product, there was predominant

underselling.199

Consequently, there was predominant underselling for the entire spectrum of products on which

the Commission collected pricing data.200 That there was also pervasive underselling in individual pricing

products where there were appreciable volumes of both the domestically processed product and the

subject imports rebuts respondents’ contention that the underselling data are skewed by the inclusion of

products where the domestically processed product does not have a substantial presence.201 In light of the

relative importance of price in purchasing decisions and the gains in market penetration the subject

imports made at the expense of the domestic industry during the period examined, we find the incidence

of underselling to be significant.202

It is not disputed that there were large price declines for both the domestically produced product

and the subject imports during the period examined. For every product for which a trend comparison

could be derived between the first and final quarters of the period examined, prices for the domestically
 203 CR/PR, Table V-1.

 204 CR/PR, Table V-1. 

 205 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that the findings above are also applicable for the domestically

processed pricing products they examined. For the subject imports, there were 41 products for which comparisons

could be made on a country-specific basis between the first and final quarters of the period examined. There were

price declines in 40 of these comparisons. In 32 instances, prices declined by more than 20 percent; in 18 instances,

prices declined by more than 30 percent. CR/PR, Table V-1.

 206 The witness first stated that an academic study performed in the 1980s indicated that it was far cheaper to farm

shrimp in several of the subject countries than it was to harvest them from the Gulf of Mexico. Tr. at 220-21

(Chamberlain). That there were differences in the cost of production in the 1980s cannot explain price declines over

a decade later. The witness then testified as to antiviral techniques he developed in 1999, which was before the

period examined, in Malaysia, which is not a subject country. He asserted that these techniques caused production

costs to decline during an unspecified period in Indonesia, which is also not a subject country. Tr. at 222-23

(Chamberlain). 

 207 See Tr. at 285-88 (Chamberlain).

 208 ASDA Prehearing Brief at A-29.

 209 CR/PR, Table C-2. Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane have relied on the data in CR/PR, Table IV-4

in making the same finding.

 210 CR at V-6, PR at V-5-6.

30

processed product declined. For five of seven products, the price decline during this period exceeded 30

percent.203 For the subject imports, there were 39 products for which comparisons could be made on a

country-specific basis between the first and final quarters of the period examined. There were price

declines in 38 of these comparisons. In 31 instances, prices declined by more than 20 percent; in 17

instances, prices declined by more than 30 percent.204 205

The two explanations respondents offer for the price declines lack factual support. Respondents

first assert that the price declines simply reflect recent efficiencies in shrimp farming in the subject

countries. Respondents’ argument disregards that we compare prices for sale in the United States, not

prices for which foreign producers sell their product for export. Moreover, the record contains no

empirical data that would corroborate respondents’ assertions. The witness who provided testimony on

this matter on respondents’ behalf furnished no empirical data in his direct testimony on how production

costs may have declined in any of the subject countries during the period examined.206 Nor did he

provide such information in responding to questions asked by Commissioners at the hearing.207 In a

subsequent written response to questioning at the hearing concerning the significance of the reductions of

production costs in the subject countries, respondents simply referred back to the hearing testimony and

provided no new information.208 

A second, related argument respondents assert is that the price declines that occurred during the

period examined were due to competition from farmed shrimp generally, rather than the subject imports. 

As a legal matter, respondents’ argument would be relevant only if the record shows that price

competition from nonsubject imports breaks the apparent nexus between the large and increasing volumes

of subject imports entering the U.S. market at declining prices and the large corresponding declines in the

prices of the domestically processed product. The record does not support such a finding. As previously

stated, subject import quantities were far larger than those for nonsubject imports during the period

examined.209 The record does not indicate any consensus among purchasers that there was a price leader

in the warmwater shrimp market.210 Moreover, were respondents’ hypothesis to be true, one would

expect that both subject and nonsubject imports would have taken market share from the domestic
 211 Purchasers overwhelmingly perceived the subject and nonsubject imports as comparable products. CR/PR,

Table E-1.

 212 CR/PR, Table C-2. Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane have relied on the data in CR/PR, Table IV-5

in making the same finding. As discussed above, respondents acknowledge that the decline in subject import market

share during interim 2004 was at least partially a function of the filing of the petitions in these investigations.

 213 CR/PR, Table IV-4.

 214 CR/PR, Table F-2.

 215 See CR/PR, Tables F-2-3.

 216 CR/PR, Table F-2.

 217 Petitioner Hearing Ex. 27.

 218 CR/PR, Table F-5.

 219 CR/PR, Table F-5.

31

industry.211 Yet from 2001 to 2003, the subject imports took market share away not only from domestic

producers but from nonsubject imports as well.212

We therefore find that a causal nexus exists between the large quantities of subject imports

entering the U.S. market at declining prices and the corresponding price declines for U.S.-processed

certain non-canned warmwater shrimp. We consequently conclude that the subject imports had

significant price-depressing effects.

5. Impact of the Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry

In analyzing the impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry producing certain noncanned warmwater shrimp, we examine each of the two segments of the industry – fishermen and

processors.

During the period examined, fishermen experienced declines in employment-related indicators

and extreme deterioration in operating performance. Publicly available data indicate that production of

fresh warmwater shrimp fluctuated between 2001 and 2003, but was lower in interim 2004 than interim

2003. On a converted basis, U.S. production of fresh shrimp declined from 181.9 million pounds in 2001

to 168.7 million pounds in 2002, and then increased to 182.5 million pounds in 2003. Interim 2004

production of 91.3 million pounds was less than interim 2003 production of 108.6 million pounds.213 We

observe that the 130 fishermen who provided usable data in response to the Commission’s fishermen’s

questionnaire, and who (in contrast to fishermen overall) increased their harvest during each full year of

the period examined, also experienced lower harvests in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.214 The

questionnaire data indicate that fishermen’s shipments are simply a function of the harvest – which is the

natural result of fishermen selling their harvest once their voyage concludes.215 Employment declined

throughout the period examined and wages paid to production workers declined from 2001 to 2003 and

were lower in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.216 Public data indicate that the number of commercial

shrimp fishing licenses in four Gulf states declined each year from 2001 to 2004.217

Average unit values (AUVs) fishermen received for the shrimp they sold declined sharply during

the period examined, corresponding to the declines in prices. As a consequence, sales revenues declined

from 2001 to 2003 and were lower in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.218 Operating expenses also

declined on both an absolute and per-unit basis. We observe, however, that many of the declines in

operating expenses were not attributable to greater “efficiency.” The largest absolute per-unit decline in

operating expenses was in labor costs.219 This, however, is largely a function of the price declines that

frequently exceeded 30 percent, as the wages crew members receive are a fixed proportion of the
 220 Tr. at 63 (Versaggi), 65-66 (St. Pierre).

 221 CR/PR, Table F-5.

 222 Tr. at 62 (Versaggi), 66 (St. Pierre), 70-71 (Wallis), 76 (Chauvin). See also CR at J-3, J-6, J-11-14, PR at J-3.

 223 CR/PR, Table F-5.

 224 CR/PR, Table C-3.

 225 The production of those processors Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane have included in the domestic

industry producing certain warmwater shrimp peaked in 2001 at *** pounds. Production then declined to ***

pounds in 2002, and increased to *** pounds in 2003. The *** pounds produced in interim 2004 was lower than the

*** pounds produced in interim 2003. CR/PR, Table III-5.

 226 CR/PR, Table C-3. Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane have relied on the data in CR/PR, Table III-5

in making the same finding.

 227 CR/PR, Table C-3.

 228 The U.S. shipments of those processors Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane have included in the

domestic industry producing certain warmwater shrimp peaked in 2001 at *** pounds. They then declined to ***

pounds in 2002, and increased to *** pounds in 2003. The *** pounds of U.S. shipments in interim 2004 was less

than the *** pounds of U.S. shipments in interim 2003. CR/PR, Table III-6. Inventories increased from *** pounds

in 2001 to *** pounds in 2003. The *** pounds of inventories in interim 2004 were greater than the *** pounds of

(continued...)

32

revenues a vessel receives for its catch.220 Other per-unit declines from 2001 to 2003 were in vessel

repairs and maintenance, insurance, and fishing gear.221 The record indicates that numerous fishermen are

cutting or deferring such expenses because they lack sufficient funds to pay them.222

The decline in AUVs was much steeper than the decline in operating expenses. As a result,

operating performance declined sharply. Although the fishermen who provided data in response to the

Commission’s questionnaire reported an operating profit before salaries to corporate officers or partners

of $732,095 in 2001, they had operating losses before salaries of $4.4 million in 2002, $3.0 million in

2003, $2.5 million in interim 2003, and $3.8 million in interim 2004. Operating margins before salaries

plummeted from 1.4 percent in 2001 to a negative 9.8 percent in 2002, and remained in negative territory

in 2003 (negative 6.6 percent), interim 2003 (negative 20.0 percent), and interim 2004 (negative 36.0

percent). The percentage of fishermen reporting net losses before salaries soared from 37 percent in 2001

to 64 percent in 2002, and was at 60 percent in 2003. This percentage was a very high 73 percent in

interim 2003, and was even higher at 84 percent in interim 2004.223

Processors showed increases in inventories, declines in employment, and generally poor financial

performance. The production of those processors we have included in the domestic industry producing

certain non-canned warmwater shrimp peaked in 2001 at 142.9 million pounds. Production then declined

to 132.6 million pounds in 2002, and increased to 138.1 million pounds in 2003. The 49.7 million pounds

produced in interim 2004 was lower than the 52.0 million pounds produced in interim 2003.224 225

Capacity was generally stable during the period examined and capacity utilization fluctuated within a

narrow range from 2001 to 2003 and showed only small variations between the interim periods.226

Processors’ U.S. shipments also peaked in 2001 at 118.3 million pounds. They then declined to

112.4 million pounds in 2002, and increased to 117.4 million pounds in 2003. The 51.5 million pounds

of U.S. shipments in interim 2004 was less than the 54.7 million pounds of U.S. shipments in interim

2003. By contrast, inventories rose throughout the period examined, increasing from 23.7 million pounds

in 2001 to 23.9 million pounds in 2002 and then to 28.9 million pounds in 2003. The 24.4 million pounds

of inventories in interim 2004 were greater than the 19.5 million pounds of inventories in interim 2003. 

Because inventories grew while shipments did not, the ratio of inventories to shipments increased

throughout the period examined.227 228
 228 (...continued)

inventories in interim 2003. Because inventories grew while shipments did not, the ratio of inventories to shipments

increased throughout the period examined. CR/PR, Table III-8.

 229 CR/PR, Table C-3.

 230 The number of production and related workers for those processors Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane

have included in the domestic industry producing certain warmwater shrimp declined from *** in 2001 to *** in

2002 and then to *** in 2003. The *** production workers in interim 2004 was fewer than the *** in interim 2003. 

Hours worked and wages paid declined from 2001 to 2003 and were lower in interim 2004 than in interim 2003. By

contrast, productivity increased during the period examined. CR/PR, Table III-9.

 231 CR/PR, Table C-3. Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane have relied on the data in CR/PR, Table VI-1

in making the same finding.

 232 CR/PR, Table C-3. Additionally, processors’ capital expenditures declined sharply. Id.

 233 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane note that for the industry producing certain warmwater shrimp,

operating income was *** in 2001, *** in 2001, *** in 2003, *** in interim 2003, and *** in interim 2004. 

Operating margins were *** percent in 2001, *** percent in 2002, *** percent in 2003, *** percent in interim 2003,

and *** percent in interim 2004. CR/PR, Table VI-1.

 234 CR/PR, Appendix Table I-1.

 235 Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 103. Respondents acknowledge that there was some improvement in prices

immediately after the filing of the petitions attributable in part to the filing. ASDA Posthearing Brief at A-51.

 236 ASDA Prehearing Brief at 43-46, 52-53; ABCC Prehearing Brief at 4-9; China Coalition Prehearing Brief at

19-21.

33

The number of production and related workers declined from 2,180 in 2001 to 1,802 in 2002 and

then to 1,616 in 2003. The 1,319 production workers in interim 2004 was fewer than the 1,431 in interim

2003. Hours worked and wages paid declined from 2001 to 2003 and were lower in interim 2004 than in

interim 2003. By contrast, productivity increased during the period examined.229 230

AUVs for those processors we have included in the domestic industry producing certain noncanned warmwater shrimp declined during the period examined, reflecting declining shrimp prices. 

These processors’ unit cost of goods sold declined as well, largely reflecting reductions in what

processors paid fishermen. Because sales quantities were stagnant to declining over the period examined,

total sales revenues declined.231 Operating income was $4.4 million in 2001, negative $131,000 in 2001,

$1.2 million in 2003, $2.0 million in interim 2003, and $4.3 million in interim 2004. Operating margins

were 0.9 percent in 2001, negative 0.0 percent in 2002, 0.3 percent in 2003, 1.1 percent in interim 2003,

and 2.7 percent in interim 2004.232 233 While over 65 percent of domestic processors had operating profits

in 2001, over half the producers had operating losses in 2002 and 2003.234 The improvement in interim

2004 appears to be largely a function of the petitions, as processors were able to sell shrimp during 2004

for a higher price than they estimated they would receive when they arranged to purchase it.235 Because

fishermen’s operating performance in interim 2004 was worse than it was in interim 2003, the improved

financial performance processors experienced in interim 2004 are not indicative of improvements in the

industry as a whole. Rather, processors appear in interim 2004 to have shifted to fisherman a greater

share of the impact of the subject imports.

Respondents have advanced several reasons why the subject imports are not responsible for the

declines in AUVs and sales revenues and the poor operating performance experienced by both processors

and fishermen. They first contend that the industry’s problems are structural in nature, and that, in

particular, fishermen cannot operate profitably because there are too many of them and barriers to entry

into the industry are too low.236 The record, however, does not support the notion that attrition of the

fishing fleet improved the operating performance of the surviving fishermen. During the period
 237 CR/PR, Table F-2.

 238 Moreover, petitioner submitted data indicating that U.S. shrimp fishermen have historically had profitable

operations. Petitioner Hearing Ex. 21. Farmed warmwater shrimp from the subject countries, with its purportedly

lower production costs, competed with domestic wild-caught shrimp in the U.S. market for many years prior to the

period examined. Petitioner Hearing Ex. 22.

 239 Iwatsu Electric Co. v. United States, 758 F. Supp. 1506, 1512, 1518 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1991).

 240 The premium niche product theory is most vigorously advocated by a Texas A&M University study submitted

by respondents. See ASDA Prehearing Brief, Ex. 6 at 47. But a draft report prepared by the National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS), on which respondents also heavily rely, posits that such a marketing program “is

uncertain in terms of outcome.” ASDA Prehearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 94. The NMFS report provides more positive

assessments of alternative measures such as vessel buy backs or fractional license programs. See id. at 89-93, 95-96. 

Such programs would require government action and could not be unilaterally implemented by the industry. It

should be emphasized that neither the Texas A&M nor the NMFS studies purport to analyze systematically why the

domestic shrimp industry is experiencing difficulties. Both studies acknowledge that increasing supplies of imported

shrimp have placed downward pressure on domestic shrimp prices. ASDA Prehearing Brief, Ex. 1 at 23, Ex. 6 at 23. 

As detailed earlier, there is a causal relationship between the subject imports and these price declines.

We also do not find the testimony of China Coalition witness Lars Liabo concerning the purported benefits

of a niche marketing program persuasive. Mr. Liabo presented various examples of successful niche marketing

efforts for wild-caught seafood products. See Tr. at 258-60 (Liabo). Most of Mr. Liabo’s examples did not involve

U.S. markets, however, and he did not provide any information in either his oral or written testimony that indicates

that any of the markets he analyzed has conditions of competition analogous to those found in the U.S. shrimp

market.

Commissioner Pearson does not join the last paragraph of this footnote.

 241 For Brazil, Commerce found margins of 9.69 percent to 67.80 percent for three named exporters and 10.40

percent for all others. 69 Fed. Reg. at 76913. For China, Commerce found margins of between 27.89 and 84.93

percent for three named exporters for which it made affirmative LTFV findings, 55.23 percent for non-examined

(continued...)

34

examined, the fishermen who responded to the Commission’s questionnaire increased their average daily

harvest, and from 2001 to 2003, managed to increase their total harvest notwithstanding declines in

employment and the numbers of days their boats were at sea.237 Notwithstanding this increased

productivity – and the fact that the overall number of vessels in the fishing fleet was declining – the

operating performance of the fishermen deteriorated sharply. Additionally, as we previously observed,

while fishermen have cut their costs during the period examined, their revenues have declined at a much

sharper rate because of falling prices. We also observe that notwithstanding the alleged structural

problems, the fishermen who furnished data to the Commission still operated profitably in 2001.238

Respondents also contend that the industry’s problems are self-inflicted because the industry has

devoted insufficient attention to marketing its product as a high-quality niche product. The legal

relevance of this argument is questionable. The Court of International Trade has held that “importers take

the domestic industry as they find it” and that inefficient operations by a domestic industry do not

preclude the Commission from making an affirmative injury determination.239 The argument does not

appear to be pertinent to the inquiry that the statute directs us to address – whether there is a nexus

between the subject imports and the industry’s acknowledged poor operating performance. Even

assuming arguendo that the inquiry is pertinent, the record does not indicate that more effective

marketing efforts would have materially ameliorated the adverse effects of the subject imports.240

Respondents cite what they characterize as low dumping margins in arguing that the domestic

industry could not compete successfully with a fairly-traded product. In connection with this argument

we have, as required by the statute, considered the magnitude of the margins of dumping that Commerce

found.241 We observe that, contrary to respondents’ characterizations, the margins are not uniformly low. 
 241 (...continued)

exporters entitled to a separate rate, and 112.81 percent for all others. 69 Fed. Reg. at 71003-04. For Ecuador,

Commerce found margins of 2.35 percent to 4.48 percent for three named exporters and 3.26 percent for all others. 

69 Fed. Reg. at 76915. For India, Commerce found margins of 5.02 percent to 13.42 percent for three named

exporters and 9.45 percent for all others. 69 Fed. Reg. at 76918. For Thailand, Commerce found margins of 5.79

percent to 6.82 percent for three named exporters and 6.03 percent for all others. 69 Fed. Reg. at 76920. For

Vietnam, Commerce found margins of 4.13 percent to 25.76 percent for four named exporters, 4.38 percent for nonexamined exporters entitled to a separate rate margin, and 25.76 percent for all others. 69 Fed. Reg. at 71009.

 242 CR/PR, Table C-2. Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane relied on the data in CR/PR, Table IV-5.

 243 See Tr. at 309 (Connelly), 337 (Stern).

 244 Algoma Steel Corp. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 645 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1988), aff’d, 865 F.2d 240 (Fed.

Cir. 1989).

 245 Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp.2d 750, 757 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2001); Iwatsu Electric Co. v.

United States, 758 F. Supp. 1506, 1510 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1991).

 246 To the extent that respondents have argued that imposition of duties will not remedy the difficulties of the

domestic industry, their argument is not relevant as a legal matter. Nothing in the statute or case law requires (or

allows) us to consider the likely effectiveness of an antidumping duty order in making our injury determination. 

Respondents further contend that use of the Commission’s COMPAS model indicates that the subject

imports have had a minimal impact on the domestic industry. While COMPAS is a tool available to the

Commission, it is not a substitute for considering the factors specified in the statute and the data on the record. See

Altx, Inc. v. United States, 370 F.3d 1108, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We have examined the empirical data in the

record pertaining to the statutory factors closely and found them to be more useful than conclusions based on the

result of the COMPAS model.

 247 Vice Chairman Okun, Commissioner Lane, and Commissioner Pearson further observe that respondents’

COMPAS results are flawed because of the use of faulty or skewed inputs. Respondents used the same domestic

supply elasticity estimate Vice Chairman Okun, Commissioner Lane, and Commissioner Pearson have previously

criticized. As observed earlier, this estimate differs substantially from the one Commission staff prepared. 

Respondents also used the end points of staff estimates of elasticities of substitution that are most favorable to them. 

35

For China, which in 2003 was the second largest supplier of the subject countries, and which was the

fastest growing supplier during the period examined,242 the lowest margin for any exporter found to be

selling at LTFV was 27.89 percent and the all others rate was over 100 percent. There are also margins

exceeding 25 percent for exporters in Brazil and Vietnam. Moreover, several of respondents’ arguments

appear to be premised on the notion that the Commission must find material injury by reason of

dumping.243 Our reviewing court, however, has stated that “Congress has not simply directed ITC to

determine directly if dumping itself is causing injury.”244 Subsequent decisions have reiterated that the

statute requires that the Commission ascertain the effect of a class or kind of imports that Commerce has

found to be sold at LTFV and that it does not require the Commission to assess the effect of the dumping

itself.245 Our findings conform to the statutory directive that we ascertain the impact of the dumped

imports.246 247

The large and increasing volume of subject imports that entered the United States during the

period examined caused domestic prices to decline. These declines led to declines in operating revenues

for both fishermen and processors, poor financial performance, and declining employment. We

consequently conclude that the cumulated subject imports have a significant impact on the domestic

industry.
 248 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane determine that the domestic industry producing certain warmwater

shrimp is materially injured by reason of cumulated subject imports from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand,

and Vietnam.

 249 69 Fed. Reg. at 71001-02. Commerce made negative final critical circumstances findings for India, 69 Fed.

Reg. at 76917, and Thailand, 69 Fed. Reg. at 76920.

 250 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(i).

 251 SAA at 877.

 252 19 U.S.C. § 1673d(b)(4)(A)(ii).

 253 See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Final), USITC Pub. 3617 at 20-22

(Aug. 2003); Certain Ammonium Nitrate from Russia, Inv. No. 731-TA-856 (Final), USITC Pub. 3338 at 12-13

(Aug. 2000).

 254 Petitioner suggests that the Commission compare data for the first two months of 2004 and the first two

months of 2003. It has provided no basis why this period would provide an appropriate basis for comparison.

36

We therefore determine that the domestic industry producing certain non-canned warmwater

shrimp is materially injured by reason of cumulated subject imports from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam.248

D. Critical Circumstances

In its final determination, Commerce made an affirmative critical circumstances finding with

respect to all Chinese exporters except Zhanjiang Guolian (which received a de minimis margin) and Red

Garden.249 Consequently, the Commission must determine whether critical circumstances exist for these

imports. Because we have determined that the domestic industry producing certain non-canned

warmwater shrimp is materially injured by reason of subject imports from China, we must further

determine “whether the imports subject to the affirmative [Commerce critical circumstances]

determination . . . are likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the antidumping duty order to

be issued.”250 The SAA indicates that the Commission is to determine “whether, by massively increasing

imports prior to the effective date of relief, the importers have seriously undermined the remedial effect of

the order.”251

The statute further provides that in making this determination the Commission shall consider,

among other factors it considers relevant:

(I) the timing and the volume of the imports,

(II) a rapid increase in inventories of the imports, and

(III) any other circumstances indicating that the remedial effect of the

antidumping order will be seriously undermined.252

Consistent with Commission practice,253 in considering the timing and volume of subject imports,

we consider import quantities prior to the filing of the petitions with those subsequent to the filing of the

petitions using monthly statistics on the record regarding exporters for which Commerce has made an

affirmative critical circumstances determination.254

The petitions were filed on December 31, 2003. During the six month period from July 2003 to

December 2003, there were 110 million pounds of imports from exporters subject to Commerce’s critical

circumstances determination. During the six-month period from January 2004 to June 2004, there were
 255 CR/PR, Table IV-7.

 256 CR/PR, Table VII-2.

 257 This is true for six of the eight products on which there is data. CR/PR, Tables G-1, G-2, G-4, G-6, G-7, G-8. 

For the remaining two products, prices fell in the first quarter of 2004 but rose in the second quarter. CR/PR, Tables

G-3, G-5.

 258 Chairman Koplan and Commissioner Lane do not join the remainder of this opinion.

 259 Because only *** percent of all warmwater shrimp processed in the United States in 2003 was canned, CR/PR,

Table III-1, canned warmwater shrimp is not processed from fresh warmwater shrimp through a continuous line of

production. Thus, fresh warmwater shrimp is not “substantially or completely” devoted to the production of canned

warmwater shrimp. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(ii)(I). Consequently, we do not include fishermen in the industry

producing canned warmwater shrimp. 

 260 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(I)(I).

 261 19 U.S.C. § 1671b(a)(1), 19 U.S.C. § 1673b(a)(1).

37

51 million pounds of imports from these exporters.255 Consequently, import volumes for the pertinent

exporters declined significantly immediately after filing of the petition. 

The information available concerning inventories is that for all Chinese producers that responded

to the Commission’s foreign producer questionnaire. This indicates that inventories of the subject

merchandise in China were significantly lower in June 2004 than they were at the end of 2003.256

Available information indicates that prices for Chinese frozen warmwater shrimp products during the first

two quarters of 2004 were generally higher than those during the final quarter of 2003.257

Consequently, the record indicates that, in the period immediately after filing of the petition,

volumes of imports subject to Commerce’s critical circumstances finding declined, inventories declined,

and prices increased. All of these factors support a conclusion that imports subject to Commerce’s

affirmative critical circumstances finding are not likely to undermine seriously the remedial effect of the

antidumping order to be issued with respect to China. Accordingly, we make a negative finding with

respect to critical circumstances.258

IV. CANNED WARMWATER SHRIMP

A. Domestic Industry

The pertinent legal standards are indicated in section III.A. above. The domestic canned

warmwater shrimp industry consists of the single U.S. processor of canned warmwater shrimp, Bumble

Bee.259

B. Negligible Imports

The statute provides that subject imports from one country that correspond to a domestic like

product and account for less than 3 percent of all such merchandise imported into the United States during

the most recent 12 months for which data are available preceding the filing of the petition, shall be

deemed negligible. If imports from multiple countries do not exceed the 3 percent threshold, they will be

deemed negligible if they collectively account for less than 7 percent of all imports.260 By operation of

law, a finding of negligibility terminates the Commission’s investigations with respect to such imports.261
 262 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(C). See also SAA at 856.

 263 19 U.S.C. § 1677(24)(A)(iv).

 264 See Official Import Statistics.

 265 See Official Import Statistics.

 266 The most recent imports of canned warmwater shrimp from either Brazil or Ecuador prior to the statutory

negligibility period occurred during 2000, when imports of canned warmwater shrimp from Ecuador accounted for

less than 1 percent of all canned warmwater shrimp imports. Prior to July 2003, the most recent imports of canned

warmwater shrimp from India occurred in 2000, when they accounted for less than 1 percent of all canned

warmwater shrimp imports. See Official Import Statistics. To the extent that data reported by Indian canned shrimp

producers in response to the Commission’s foreign producers’ questionnaire deviates from the official import

statistics, we have relied on the official statistics.

 267 See Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief at A-3-5; Petitioner Posthearing Brief at C-17-18 & n.58.

38

The Commission is authorized to make “reasonable estimates on the basis of available statistics” of

pertinent import levels for purposes of deciding negligibility.262

The statute also provides that, even if imports are found to be negligible for purposes of present

material injury, they shall not be treated as negligible for purposes of a threat analysis should the

Commission determine that there is a potential that imports from the country concerned will imminently

account for more than 3 percent (or 7 percent, with respect to multiple countries) of all such merchandise

imported into the United States.263

Imports of canned warmwater shrimp from China, Thailand, and Vietnam were respectively 13.5

percent, 59.0 percent, and 9.7 percent of all canned warmwater shrimp imports during the period from

December 2002 to November 2003.264 Because these ratios are above the 3 percent statutory negligibility

threshold, we find that imports of canned warmwater shrimp from China, Thailand, and Vietnam are not

negligible.

There were no imports of canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil or Ecuador during the period

December 2002 to November 2003. Imports of canned warmwater shrimp from India accounted for 1.0

percent of all canned warmwater shrimp imports during the period December 2002 through November

2003. During the period December 2002 through November 2003, imports of canned warmwater shrimp

from Brazil, Ecuador, and India combined accounted for 1.0 percent of all canned warmwater shrimp

imports.265 Consequently, subject canned warmwater shrimp imports from Brazil, Ecuador, and India are

below both the individual and collective statutory negligibility thresholds.

We next consider whether subject canned warmwater shrimp imports from Brazil, Ecuador, and

India will imminently exceed the statutory negligibility thresholds. We answer this question in the

negative, as the record indicates that canned warmwater shrimp imports from these countries have not

been present in the U.S. market during any recent period prior to the statutory negligibility period in

quantities even close to the statutory negligibility thresholds.266 We further observe that the parties do not

dispute that canned warmwater shrimp imports from Brazil, Ecuador, and India are negligible.267

We thus determine that imports of canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, and India are

negligible. Consequently, we terminate the investigations as they pertain to canned warmwater shrimp

from these sources.
 268 See 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(G)(ii)(III).

 269 See Petitioner Posthearing Brief at C-17-19; Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief at A-5.

 270 Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief, Ex. 3 at 2; Ex. 6 at 3.

 271 See ***.

 272 CR/PR, Table D-1.

 273 See Petitioner Posthearing Brief at C-17, C-25-35.

39

C. Cumulation

The general legal standards pertaining to cumulation are stated in section III.B.above.

Because subject canned warmwater shrimp imports from Brazil, Ecuador, and India are

negligible, and the associated investigations have been terminated, they are ineligible for cumulation.268

Canned warmwater shrimp imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam are eligible for cumulation. The

parties do not dispute that the Commission should cumulate subject canned warmwater shrimp imports

from these countries if canned warmwater shrimp is a separate domestic like product.269

The information in the record indicates that imported canned warmwater shrimp and domestically

produced canned warmwater shrimp are sold side by side in supermarkets. Moreover, the principal

importer of canned warmwater shrimp, Chicken of the Sea, has purchased canned product from both

domestic sources and subject sources in recent years.270 These facts support a conclusion that the subject

canned warmwater shrimp imports and the domestically produced product are fungible.

The other criteria the Commission examines in determining whether there is a reasonable overlap

of competition are satisfied as well. Both the domestically produced product and the subject imports are

sold to grocery stores and distributors, and are sold nationally.271 Consequently, there are geographic

overlaps and overlaps in channels of distribution. Imports of canned warmwater shrimp from China,

Thailand, and Vietnam have been present in the U.S. market throughout the period examined.272

Accordingly, we cumulate canned warmwater shrimp imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam for

purposes of our analysis of material injury by reason of subject imports for the domestic like product

consisting of canned warmwater shrimp.

D. No Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

The general legal standards pertinent to analysis of material injury by reason of subject imports

are stated in section III.C.1. above. We observe that petitioner did not assert a present material injury

argument for a separate canned warmwater shrimp domestic like product. It argued solely that a separate

canned warmwater shrimp industry was threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports.273

1. Conditions of Competition

Several conditions of competition are pertinent to our analysis of the domestic canned warmwater

shrimp industry. 

U.S. apparent consumption of canned warmwater shrimp fluctuated during the period examined. 

U.S. apparent consumption declined from 2001 to 2003, notwithstanding an increase from 2002 to 2003,
 274 U.S. apparent consumption of canned warmwater shrimp declined from *** pounds in 2001 to *** pounds in

2002, and then increased to *** pounds in 2003. Interim 2004 apparent consumption of *** pounds was higher than

interim 2003 apparent consumption of *** pounds. CR/PR, Table D-1. As we indicated in section III.B.2. above,

U.S. apparent consumption is much lower for canned warmwater shrimp than for certain non-canned warmwater

shrimp.

 275 Petitioner Posthearing Brief at C-26; Tr. at 384 (Wendt).

 276 CR/PR, Table D-1.

 277 The share of U.S. apparent consumption represented by nonsubject canned warmwater shrimp imports

declined from *** percent in 2001 to *** percent in 2002, and then declined further to *** percent in 2003. This

share was *** percent in interim 2003 – a lower share than that achieved during any full year of the period examined

– and *** percent in interim 2004 – a higher share than that achieved during any full year of the period examined. 

CR/PR, Table D-1.

 278 CR/PR, Table D-1. 

 279 Petitioner claims that the decline occurred because ***. Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 21, ¶ 13. Chicken of

the Sea disputes this, stating that ***. Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief, Ex. 6, ¶ 17. It is unnecessary for us to

resolve this factual dispute.

 280 CR/PR, Table D-1.

 281 We acknowledge that the ratio of subject imports to domestic production did increase between 2001 and 2003. 

However, as we explain further below, the 2001 domestic production data are anomalous. The ratio of subject

imports to domestic production declined from 2002 to 2003 and was lower in interim 2004 than in interim 2003. 

CR/PR, Table D-1.

40

but was higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.274 The parties agree that U.S. demand for canned

warmwater shrimp has been flat or declining.275

Subject imports supplied the largest share of the U.S. canned warmwater shrimp market during

the period examined. The domestic industry supplied the next largest share.276 As previously discussed,

there is only one U.S. producer of canned warmwater shrimp – Bumble Bee. Nonsubject imports

supplied a smaller share of the market than either the domestic industry or subject imports. The share of

the U.S. market supplied by nonsubject imports, however, fluctuated sharply during the interim periods.277

2. Volume of the Subject Imports

The quantity of cumulated subject imports of canned warmwater shrimp declined during the

period examined. Cumulated subject imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam declined from 3.31

million pounds in 2001 to 3.26 million pounds in 2002 to 3.12 million pounds in 2003. Interim 2004

subject imports of 1.10 million pounds were lower than interim 2003 subject imports of 1.49 million

pounds.278 The parties dispute whether the decline between the interim periods was a result of the filing

of the petitions.279

Market penetration of the cumulated subject imports increased from 55.2 percent in 2001 to 58.4

percent in 2002 and then declined to 53.0 percent in 2003. Cumulated subject import market penetration

was lower in interim 2004, when it was 37.4 percent, than it was in interim 2003, when it was 62.2

percent.280

Although subject imports accounted for a majority of U.S. apparent consumption of canned

warmwater shrimp during most of the period examined, subject import volume and market penetration

declined overall from 2001 to 2003 and showed further reductions between the interim periods.281 These

declines diminish the significance of the volume of subject imports.
 282 Petitioner was asked at the hearing to brief volume, price effects, and impact based on a separate canned

warmwater shrimp domestic like product. See Tr. at 210.

 283 Petitioner provides no meaningful details concerning its other allegations. Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex.

21, ¶ 5.

 284 This finding is based on our review of the materials in the record, including Chicken of the Sea Posthearing

Brief, Ex. 6, Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 21, and the hearing testimony of Mr. Cook of Bumble Bee.

 285 For the canned warmwater shrimp product on which the Commission collected pricing data, subject imports

from China, Thailand, and Vietnam undersold the domestic like product in 14 quarterly comparisons and oversold it

in 11. CR/PR, Table V-2.

 286 CR/PR, Table G-10. The domestic canner ***.

 287 CR/PR, Table D-1. ***.

 288 CR/PR, Table D-1.

41

3. Price Effects of the Subject Imports

To the extent that petitioner – which did not present a present material injury argument282 – has

made any argument on price effects, the crux of its argument is that Bumble Bee lost for price reasons a

significant quantity of sales for private label product it made to Chicken of the Sea.283 (Indeed, this

argument appears to be the crux of petitioner’s entire causation case for the canned warmwater shrimp

domestic like product.) Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, we find that Bumble Bee lost

this business not for price reasons, but because Chicken of the Sea did not desire to rely on its primary

competitor in its main canned tuna business as its sole supplier of private label canned warmwater

shrimp.284

Consequently, the single purchasing decision on which petitioner places principal reliance for its

causation argument was not based on price considerations. This and the fact that the subject imports lost

volume and market share to the domestic industry during the period examined diminishes the significance

of the underselling observed.285 

Prices for the domestically produced canned shrimp product declined between the first

observation (for the first quarter of 2002) and the second (for the following quarter), but fluctuated within

a fairly narrow range for the remaining nine quarters of observations. Prices for the subject imports

generally fluctuated within a fairly narrow range during most of the periods during which observations

for a domestically produced product were available. Even when there were fluctuations in the prices of

subject imports, there was no discernible correlation between these changes and changes in the domestic

canner’s price.286 We consequently find that the subject imports did not have significant price-depressing

effects. 

While we acknowledge that the domestic canner’s ratio of cost of goods sold (COGS) to sales

was higher in 2003 than in 2001, this appears to be in substantial part due to ***.287 The ratio of COGS

to sales declined from 2002 to 2003, and was lower in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.288 Based on this

data, we find that cumulated subject imports of canned warmwater shrimp from China, Thailand, and

Vietnam did not have significant price-suppressing effects.
 289 Information on the pertinent dumping margins was provided in section III.C.5. above.

 290 CR/PR, Table D-1.

 291 Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 21, ¶¶ 12, 14.

 292 CR/PR, Table D-1. There were no changes in the domestic canner’s capacity during the period examined. 

Consequently, capacity utilization fluctuated in the same manner as production. Id.

 293 CR/PR, Table D-1.

 294 CR/PR, Table D-1.

 295 CR/PR, Table D-1.

 296 CR/PR, Table D-1.

 297 19 U.S.C. § 1677d(b) and 1677(7)(F)(ii).

42

4. Impact of Subject Imports on the Domestic Industry289

The indicator of the domestic canner that fell most sharply between 2001 and 2003 is production,

which declined by *** percent.290 Because production increased from 2002 to 2003 and was higher in

interim 2004 than in interim 2003, this decline was entirely attributable to events in 2001. *** Bumble

Bee experienced the effects of the private label sales it lost from Chicken of the Sea.291 We have

previously found that these sales were not lost for price reasons.

***.292 Because ***, we believe that sales and shipments provide better measures of the domestic

canner’s performance. The canner’s quantity of both sales and U.S. shipments increased from 2001 to

2003 and were higher in interim 2004 and interim 2003. Inventories declined during the period

examined.293

Moreover, notwithstanding the declines in production, the domestic canner gained market share

during the period examined. Its share of U.S. apparent consumption rose from *** percent in 2001 to ***

percent in 2003, and was higher in interim 2004 than in interim 2003.294

Employment-related indicators generally declined during the period examined, although they

increased from 2002 to 2003 and during the interim period comparison.295 These employment declines

appear to be a function of the lost private label sales.

The domestic canner’s financial performance was mixed. It incurred *** in 2002 and interim

2003, but showed *** financial performance during 2001, 2003, and interim 2004.296

Most performance indicators for the domestic canner, including shipments, market share, and

operating performance, improved during the latter portion of the period examined. Any performance

declines appear to be related to the loss of private sales to Chicken of the Sea, which we have found were

not price-related. Due to these improvements in performance indicators and the lack of any significant

price-depressing or -suppressing effects from the subject imports, we conclude that cumulated subject

imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam did not have a significant impact on the domestic industry

producing canned warmwater shrimp. We consequently determine that the domestic canned warmwater

shrimp industry is not materially injured by reason of subject imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam.

E. No Threat of Material Injury by Reason of Subject Imports

Section 771(7)(F) of the Act directs the Commission to determine whether an industry in the

United States is threatened with material injury by reason of the subject imports by analyzing whether

“further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports

would occur unless an order is issued or a suspension agreement is accepted.”297 The Commission may

not make such a determination “on the basis of mere conjecture or supposition,” and considers the threat
 298 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F)(ii). An affirmative threat determination must be based upon “positive evidence

tending to show an intention to increase the levels of importation.” Metallverken Nederland B.V. v. United States,

744 F. Supp. 281, 287 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), citing American Spring Wire Corp. v. United States, 590 F. Supp.

1273, 1280 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1984); see also Calabrian Corp. v. United States, 794 F. Supp. 377, 387-88 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1992), citing H.R. Rep. No. 98-1156 at 174 (1984).

 299 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(F). The Commission must consider, in addition to other relevant economic factors, the

following statutory factors in its threat analysis:

(I) if a countervailable subsidy is involved, such information as may be presented to it by the administering

authority as to the nature of the subsidy particularly as to whether the countervailable subsidy is a subsidy

described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the Subsidies Agreement and whether imports of the subject merchandise

are likely to increase,

(II) any existing unused production capacity or imminent, substantial increase in production capacity in the

exporting country indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports of the subject merchandise

into the United States, taking into account the availability of other export markets to absorb any additional

exports,

(III) a significant rate of increase of the volume or market penetration of imports of the subject merchandise

indicating the likelihood of substantially increased imports,

(IV) whether imports of the subject merchandise are entering at prices that are likely to have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices and are likely to increase demand for further imports,

(V) inventories of the subject merchandise,

(VI) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in the foreign country, which can be used to

produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products,

(VII) in any investigation under this subtitle which involves imports of both a raw agricultural product

(within the meaning of paragraph (4)(E)(iv)) and any product processed from such raw agricultural product,

the likelihood that there will be increased imports, by reason of product shifting, if there is an affirmative

determination by the Commission under section 1671d(b)(1) or 1673d(b)(1) of this title with respect to

either the raw agricultural product or the processed agricultural product (but not both),

(VIII) the actual and potential negative effects on the existing development and production efforts of the

domestic industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version of the domestic like

product, and

(IX) any other demonstrable adverse trends that indicate the probability that there is likely to be

material injury by reason of imports (or sale for importation) of the subject merchandise (whether or not it

is actually being imported at the time).

Moreover, the Commission shall consider the threat factors “as a whole” in making its determination

“whether further dumped or subsidized imports are imminent and whether material injury by reason of imports

would occur” unless an order issues. In addition, the Commission must consider whether dumping findings or

antidumping remedies in markets of foreign countries against the same class of merchandise suggest a threat of

material injury to the domestic industry.

Factors I and VII are inapplicable to the canned warmwater shrimp domestic like product. With respect to

section VIII, the record does not contain any information that the domestic canned warmwater shrimp industry is

engaging in any efforts to develop a more advanced product.

 300 19 U.S.C. § 1677(7)(H).

43

factors “as a whole.”298 In making our threat determination, we have considered all factors that are

relevant to these investigations.299

Cumulation for threat analysis is treated in Section 771(7)(H) of the Act, which leaves to the

Commission’s discretion the cumulation of imports in analyzing threat of material injury.300 Based on an

evaluation of the relevant criteria, our analysis supporting cumulation in the context of assessing present

material injury, and the lack of any objection to cumulation for threat analysis, we exercise our discretion

to cumulate canned warmwater shrimp imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam. For the reasons
 301 CR/PR, Table D-3. This is based principally on data concerning canners in Thailand. Thailand was the source

of the majority of cumulated subject imports throughout the period examined. CR/PR, Table D-1.

 302 CR/PR, Table D-3. We observe that this conclusion does not change if we additionally examine data

concerning the industries producing all subject warmwater shrimp products in China and Vietnam, as petitioner

advocates. See CR/PR, Table VII-2, VII-6.

 303 CR/PR, Table D-3.

 304 CR/PR, Table D-1.

 305 Petitioner Posthearing Brief at C-26; Tr. at 384 (Wendt).

44

discussed below, we determine that the domestic canned warmwater shrimp industry is not threatened

with material injury by reason of cumulated subject imports.

There was no significant rate of increase in the volume or market penetration of subject imports

during the period examined. As discussed above, both the quantity and market penetration of subject

imports declined from 2001 to 2003. Consequently, the data concerning subject import trends during the

period examined do not indicate the likelihood of substantially increased subject imports.

The record indicates that there is unused capacity in the subject countries we have cumulated.

Unused capacity existed throughout the period examined, however.301 Nevertheless, cumulated subject

import volume and market penetration did not increase. Moreover, while the record indicates that the

industries producing subject merchandise are export-oriented, they have significant markets other than the

United States.302 In light of the historical data, we cannot conclude that the existence of unused capacity

indicates a likelihood of substantially increased subject imports. 

We found above that the cumulated subject imports do not currently have significant pricesuppressing or -depressing effects. Given the cumulated subject import volumes are unlikely to increase

significantly, the lack of significant price effects will likely continue.

We do not find that the data in the record concerning inventories support an affirmative threat

determination. Inventory levels in the cumulated subject countries increased at the end of the period

examined.303 As indicated above, the theoretical ability to increase exports had not led to actual increases

during the period examined. Moreover, inventory levels of subject merchandise in the United States in

June 2004 were at a low point for the period examined.304

There is a theoretical potential for product shifting, inasmuch as frozen shrimp can undergo

further processing to be exported as a canned product. Nevertheless, we do not believe that a significant

degree of product shifting is likely as a practical matter. As previously discussed, market participants

agree that U.S. demand for frozen shrimp is increasing, while demand for canned warmwater shrimp is

stagnant to declining.305 We do not believe that avoiding antidumping duties would provide a sufficient

incentive for foreign producers to switch their production from a product type where demand is growing

to one where demand is not. This is particularly true where the products are not good substitutes. As we

found above, interchangeability between frozen and canned warmwater shrimp is limited, because canned

shrimp are typically much smaller in size than frozen shrimp and are used in a far more limited variety of

meal preparations. 

We also have considered petitioner’s argument that the domestic canner is in a vulnerable

condition. Although we acknowledge that the domestic canner had mixed operating results during the

period examined, we found above that the canner’s shipments, market share, and financial performance

all improved during the latter portion of the period examined. In light of these improvements and the

other information in the record indicating that neither any significant increase in subject import volume

nor significant price effects from cumulated subject imports is imminent, we do not find that there are

demonstrable adverse trends indicating that there is likely to be material injury by reason of cumulated

subject imports absent issuance of antidumping duty orders.
45

Accordingly, we determine that the domestic canned warmwater shrimp industry is not threatened

with material injury by reason of subject imports from China, Thailand, and Vietnam.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the domestic industry producing certain non-canned

warmwater shrimp is materially injured by reason of subject imports from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam, but we find that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports from

China. We determine that the domestic industry producing canned warmwater shrimp is not materially

injured or threatened with material injury by reason of subject imports from China, Thailand, and

Vietnam. We determine that subject canned warmwater shrimp imports from Brail, Ecuador, and India

are negligible.
46
1

The distinct “canned shrimp” domestic product advocated by Chicken of the Sea and Seatech encompasses

only products that can be stored at room temperature (shelf-stable products). It does not include canned products

that must be kept frozen until ready for use. See Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief at A-1; Seatech Posthearing

Brief at 3. 

2

Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief at 3-6, Seatech Prehearing Brief at 4; Tr. at 384 (Wendt). 

3

Chicken of the Sea Prehearing Brief at 7-9; Seatech Prehearing Brief at 4-6. 

4

Chicken of the Sea Prehearing Brief at 9-10; Seatech Prehearing Brief at 9-10. 

47

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN KOPLAN 

AND COMMISSIONER LANE

Based on the record in these investigations, we determine that an industry in the United States

producing certain canned or frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns is materially injured by reason of

imports of subject merchandise from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam that are sold in

the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). We concur with our colleagues in finding that critical

circumstances do not exist with respect to the subject merchandise from China.

 

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

We join our colleagues in finding that fresh warmwater shrimp are part of the domestic like

product under the Commission’s “semi-finished product” analysis. We also join in the Commission’s

determination that “shrimp scampi” is not a separate like product for the reasons stated above. We dissent

from the Commission’s views, however, in that we find that canned warmwater shrimp are part of the

domestic like product encompassing frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns, consistent with the

scope of investigation as defined by the Department of Commerce.

A. Arguments of the Parties

1. Respondents

Respondents Chicken of the Sea and Seatech, both of which are importers of the subject

merchandise, argue that the Commission should define canned shrimp as a distinct domestic like product. 

They point to distinctions in packaging between canned and frozen warmwater shrimp, i.e. canned shrimp

is typically sold in four to six-ounce cans that have been hermetically sealed and cooked, while frozen

shrimp is typically sold in a larger-size box or bag.1

 They assert that the canning process imparts distinct

physical characteristics that distinguish canned from frozen warmwater shrimp. They contend that these

characteristics include different ingredients, a different nutritional profile, softer texture, and a metallic

taste. They assert that canned shrimp must always be peeled and cooked before packaging while frozen

shrimp is sold in a variety of forms, and that canned shrimp are typically smaller than frozen shrimp.2

 

Chicken of the Sea and Seatech contend that canned warmwater shrimp is not used for “center of

the plate” presentations, but is typically one of several ingredients in salads, soups, dips or casseroles. 

They contend that the limited range of overlap in end use, together with differences in physical

characteristics limit the interchangeability of canned and frozen shrimp.3

 

These respondents also contend that canned and frozen shrimp are sold through different channels

of distribution, in that frozen shrimp is sold principally to restaurants and canned shrimp is sold

principally to retailers.4

 Chicken of the Sea asserts that canned shrimp is marketed differently from

frozen shrimp, and that even in situations in which grocers carry both canned and frozen shrimp, the two
5

Chicken of the Sea Prehearing Brief at pages 9 and 14-15. 

6

Chicken of the Sea Prehearing Brief at 11-13; Seatech Prehearing Brief at 7-8. 

7

Chicken of the Sea Prehearing Brief at 15-16; Seatech Prehearing Brief at 11-12. 

8

Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief at 11. 

9

Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 16-17. 

10Petitioner Posthearing Brief at D-5, Ex. 41, attachments 2, 3. 

11Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 16-18. 

12Petitioner Posthearing Brief at D-13. 

13Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 18, Posthearing Brief at A-18, Ex. 21. . 

14Email from *** to John Benedetto,the Commission’s International Economist, December 10, 2004, EDIS

document #220542. 

15Petitioner Posthearing Brief at D-17-18. 

48

products are carried by different departments. It asserts that consumers purchase frozen shrimp for

immediate or short-term use, while canned shrimp is purchased for longer-term or indeterminate use. It

argues that these factors indicate that customers perceive canned shrimp and frozen shrimp to be distinct

products.5

 

Chicken of the Sea and Seatech assert that the production of canned shrimp requires specialized

machinery for sealing the cans and making them shelf-stable. No domestic processors of frozen shrimp

produce shelf-stable canned shrimp. The single domestic producer of canned warmwater shrimp does not

process frozen shrimp.6

 Chicken of the Sea and Seatech also argue that the price of canned shrimp is far

higher on a per-pound basis than that of frozen shrimp.7

 Chicken of the Sea further asserts that there is no

correlation between the pricing data collected by the Commission for domestically-produced canned

shrimp and that collected for domestically-produced frozen shrimp.8

 

2. Petitioner

 Petitioner, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, contends that frozen and canned

warmwater shrimp are produced from the same raw materials (fresh warmwater shrimp), and are sold in

overlapping size ranges. It asserts that canned shrimp have a similar physical appearance to frozen

shrimp that have been thawed, peeled, and cooked. It also notes that there is a domestically-produced

frozen warmwater shrimp product that is sold in canned form.9

 It also asserts that the use of preservatives

is common to both canned and frozen shrimp.10 Petitioner contends that both canned and frozen

warmwater shrimp are consumed in meal preparations in an overlapping range of recipes and has

submitted numerous recipes which it states indicate that the two may be substituted for each other in

specific preparations.11 It also states that the interchangeability of frozen and canned shrimp is evidenced

by their similar seasonal consumption cycles.12 

Petitioner contends that there are common channels of distribution for canned and frozen

warmwater shrimp, in that both are sold to both distributors and retailers, and that some of the distributors

that purchase domestically-produced canned shrimp also purchase frozen shrimp.13 In response to a

request for information regarding the consumers of canned shrimp, *** of Bumble Bee reported that

***.14 While petitioner acknowledges that grocers do not stock canned and frozen shrimp side-by-side, it

emphasizes that grocers may carry frozen shrimp in several different departments (such as frozen foods

and the seafood service counter).15 

Petitioner states that the production process for canning is exactly the same as that for the

production of frozen shrimp up until the packaging stage, such that the production equipment and
16Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 18-19. 

17Petitioner Prehearing Brief at 19-20. 

18Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief, Ex. 1. 

19Seatech’s Prehearing Brief notes at 12 that “The yield of net weight canned shrimp is 50 percent or less

from the same raw materials {headless shell-on shrimp}, with the difference being the severe cooking temperature

required for the canned product.” 

20Bumble Bee Processor Questionnaire Response, response to question II-12. 

21Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 49, ¶ 3.

22Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 49 attachment 1. 

23Processors’ Questionnaire Responses (aggregation of responses to question II-12). 

24Petitioner Posthearing Brief Ex. 49, attachment 3. 

25Hearing Tr. at 244 (Mentzer). 

49

processes in a facility producing canned shrimp are the same as those in a facility producing frozen

shrimp up until the packaging stage.16 Petitioner also contends that responses to the Commission’s

purchaser questionnaire indicate that the majority of responding purchasers confirm that price changes for

frozen shrimp will affect prices for canned shrimp.17 

B. Analysis

Physical Characteristics and End Uses

Canned shrimp have a basic appearance similar to other (frozen and thawed) cooked and peeled

shrimp.18 Furthermore, canned shrimp is produced in a wide range of sizes and does not solely consist of

tiny shrimp or shrimp pieces. Bumble Bee, the only domestic producer of shelf-stable canned warmwater

shrimp, indicated in its questionnaire response that ***.19 ***.20 Thus, although a large percentage of

canned shrimp consist of relatively small shrimp or shrimp pieces, a significant portion of the domestic

canned shrimp are larger sized shrimp. 

In addition to cans of smaller shrimp, Bumble Bee produces and sells cans of shrimp that are

equivalent to 40 pieces per pound or larger on a live weight basis. For example, Bumble Bee’s cans of

“Large Shrimp” contain between 30 and 40 shrimp per can, which is equivalent to 36 to 40 shrimp per

pound on a live weight basis. Bumble Bee additionally produces cans of “Jumbo Shrimp” with less than

30 pieces per pound.21 Bumble Bee has submitted invoices indicating that it has purchased fresh shrimp

for canning in sizes as large as 31-35 pieces per pound.22 The invoices submitted by Bumble Bee, which

are described as being from a “representative month in both 2003 and 2004" show an overwhelming

preponderance of purchases of shrimp in the size ranges of 61/71, 71/80, and 81/100 pieces per pound,

with a very small percentage of purchases in sizes over 100 pieces per pound. Questionnaire data indicate

that 21.7 percent of U.S. processors’ commercial shipments of frozen shrimp in 2003 were of count sizes

smaller than 91 pieces per pound, and that 7.6 percent of these shipments were of counts smaller than 150

pieces per pound.23 

Domestically-produced canned shrimp products contain shrimp, water, salt, and preservatives.24

Respondents’ witness indicated that domestically-produced frozen shrimp can also contain extra water

content and preservatives.25 

The end use of both canned and frozen shrimp is meal preparation. Domestic canned shrimp

producer Bumble Bee lists a variety of recipes on its website in which canned shrimp is an essential
26Petitioner Prehearing Brief, Ex. 8. 

27Staff Report, CR at II-41, PR at II-26. 

28Hearing Tr. at 271 (Herzig). 

29Petitioner Prehearing Brief, Ex. 6. 

30Bumble Bee Processors’ Questionnaire Response, response to question II-9. 

31Hearing Tr. at 162 (Cook); Bumble Bee Processors Questionnaire Response, response ***. 

32Staff Report, CR at I-7, PR at I-6. 

33Staff Report, CR at II-41, PR at II-26. 

34Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 21. 

50

ingredient.26 Additionally, there is some overlap in recipes for canned shrimp and those for frozen

shrimp. 

Interchangeability

Only six of the 36 purchasers that submitted questionnaire responses reported purchases of both

frozen and canned shrimp. Purchasers such as *** stated that the products could not be substitutes, while

purchasers such as *** indicated that consumers could use the products interchangeably in some end

uses.27 The restauranteur who testified at the hearing stated that his restaurant chain would not substitute

canned shrimp for frozen shrimp.28 However, petitioner has provided a large number of recipes that

specify canned shrimp may be substituted for frozen shrimp. One characteristic that these recipes share

with the recipes provided by Bumble Bee is that shrimp is one of several ingredients used to make the

dish.29

Channels of Distribution

Bumble Bee’s questionnaire response indicates that throughout the period of investigation, ***

percent of its shipments were sold to distributors and *** percent were sold directly to retailers and other

buyers.30 The record indicates that the great majority of canned shrimp is ultimately purchased by

consumers in grocery stores.31 In contrast, petitioner has estimated that 80 percent of frozen shrimp is

consumed in restaurants.32 As previously noted, six responding purchasers purchase both canned and

frozen shrimp.33 Bumble Bee states that it sells canned shrimp to several distributors that also purchase

frozen shrimp.34 
35Hearing Tr. at 89, 162 (Cook). 

36Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 49, ¶ 6, 7. 

37Staff Report CR at I-9-10, PR at I-7-8; Petitioner Prehearing Brief, Ex. 2 (Gollott and Blanchard

declaration). 

38Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 49, ¶ 7. 

39See http://www.bumblebee.com/products.isp (visited and printed December 16, 2004). 

40Chicken of the Sea Posthearing Brief, Ex. 3, ¶ 9-14. 

41Petitioner Posthearing Brief at D-17-18. 

42Petitioner Posthearing Brief, Ex. 21, attachment 1. 

43Staff Report, Tables G1 through G-10. 

51

Production Processes, Facilities, and Employees

There is one domestic processor of shelf-stable canned shrimp, Bumble Bee, which does not

process frozen shrimp.35 Bumble Bee states that after it receives warmwater shrimp it unloads, ***,

weighs, peels, ***, deveins, *** them.36 Bumble Bee states that the processes performed and the

equipment it uses in these steps are the same as the processes and equipment that would be used in

processing frozen shrimp. This assertion, which respondents do not contest, is supported by the record.37

Bumble Bee’s production process also includes several steps that it indicates are unique to canning. 

These include ***. These steps require specialized equipment not used by processors of frozen shrimp.38 

Producer and Customer Perceptions

Bumble Bee’s website depicts canned shrimp as one member of a family of branded canned

seafood products which also includes canned salmon, tuna, crab, oysters, clams, and sardines.39 Grocers,

which are among the principal purchasers of canned shrimp, typically display canned and frozen shrimp

in different parts of the store that are supervised by different managers.40 However, as previously noted,

frozen shrimp may also be displayed in several different parts of the store.41 Bumble Bee has presented

data indicating that grocery sales of both canned and frozen shrimp peak at the same time of year – during

the late December-early January holiday season.42 

Price

The pricing data collected by the Commission indicate that domestically-produced canned shrimp

is priced higher on a per-pound basis than the majority of the frozen shrimp products for which the

Commission collected pricing data. However, domestically-produced product 3 (frozen shrimp or

prawns, 26 to 30 count, raw, peeled and deveined, tail-on, block frozen) sold at average unit values higher

than those reported for canned shrimp in six of ten quarters for which comparisons could be made; and

prices for domestically-produced product 9 (frozen shrimp or prawns, 10 to 15 count, raw, headless, shellon, block frozen) were higher on a per-pound basis than the comparable price for canned shrimp in each

of the ten quarters for which comparisons could be made.43 Canned shrimp is further processed than most

of the other products for which pricing data were collected. As we noted in the preliminary stage of these

investigations, shrimp of a particular size generally sell for lower prices than products of the same size

that have been further processed. Petitioner has estimated that cooking adds *** cents per pound to the
44Petitioner Postconference Brief, Ex. 35, Blanchard affidavit, ¶ 11. 

45Petitioner Posthearing Brief at C-34. 

46For example, within the continuum of frozen shrimp, peeled shrimp could not be substituted for unpeeled

shrimp in applications that call for unpeeled shrimp, and cooked shrimp could not be substituted for raw shrimp in a

recipe that calls for raw shrimp. 

52

value of shrimp; more than is added by either peeling or deveining.44 ***. Petitioner does not dispute that

a canned product will be more expensive than a frozen product containing similarly-sized shrimp.45 

Conclusion

We find that there are significant overlaps in characteristics between canned and frozen shrimp. 

Canned and frozen cooked shrimp have similar underlying physical characteristics and end uses. Canned

shrimp are sold in a range of sizes that overlaps that of frozen shrimp, both are used for meal preparations

and may be used interchangeably in certain recipes, and are produced using significant common

equipment and processes. Although there are some applications for which canned shrimp is not

interchangeable for frozen shrimp, the same can be said of any continuum that encompasses both upstream

and downstream articles.46 Each processing step closes the door on applications that call for the lessprocessed product. 

There are several purchasers that distribute or retail both frozen and canned shrimp. Canned

shrimp is actually less expensive on a per pound basis than some items in the spectrum of frozen shrimp

products. While we acknowledge that the majority of frozen shrimp is consumed in restaurants, the record

establishes that there are also substantial sales at retail. In our view, as the Commission found in the

Preliminary Determination, we find again that the overlaps in product characteristics, end uses, channels

of distribution, and production processes outweigh the distinctions between the canned and frozen shrimp. 

We therefore find that canned shrimp is part of a single domestic like product encompassing frozen or

canned warmwater shrimp; consistent with the scope of the investigation as defined by the Department of

Commerce. 
 1

 National Marine Fisheries Service Draft, “Shrimp Business Options,” at 12, in ASDA prehearing brief, 

exhibit 1.

 2 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 3 CR/PR at Table C-2.

 4 Technical Assistance Curriculum, Wild-Harvested Shrimp,” at 12, in ASDA prehearing brief, exhibit 6.

53

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER DANIEL R. PEARSON

I join with my colleagues in finding that the domestic industry producing certain non-canned

warmwater shrimp is materially injured by reason of subject imports from Brazil, China, Equador, India,

Thailand, and Vietnam. However, my findings about this industry and this market differ in some ways

from those of my colleagues, especially regarding the volume of subject imports and the

interchangeability of subject imports with the domestic like product.

The domestic like product is overwhelmingly produced from wild-caught shrimp, while subject

imports are overwhelmingly produced by aquaculture. The supply curve for the U.S. shrimp industry is

vertical over most of its range. The record indicates that, no matter how high the price goes, the domestic

catch is not likely to exceed roughly 220 million pounds of shell-on, headless shrimp. Shrimp landing

information for the last two decades support this conclusion. According to a National Marine Fisheries

Service series, the peak year for shrimp landings in the last 20 years was as long ago as 1986. Shrimp

landings over the last few years have been, on average, higher than in the early part of the 1990s, but no

higher than the average for most of the 1980s.1

 The harvest remained fairly consistent across a long

period of time despite innovations in technology (e.g., freezer boats, better weather information, etc.) or

increased regulations (e.g., TEDs). This consistency suggests there is an upward limit on the possible

shrimp harvest, and landing data suggest that the industry has been operating at the upper ends of that

limit through most of the period of investigation. 

Under the conditions that have prevailed in this industry, there is no evidence on the record

indicating that further price increases lead to a significantly larger aggregate catch. Over a wide range of

prices, changes in the volume of imported shrimp appear to have no effect on the volume of shrimp

caught by the U.S. industry.

While landings of wild-caught shrimp have been consistent, apparent U.S. consumption of shrimp

has increased at significant rates. In a single two-year period, apparent U.S. consumption of certain noncanned warmwater shrimp increased by *** percent, from *** billion pounds in 2001 to *** billion

pounds in 2003.2

 Imports were required to meet this demand. Cumulated subject imports increased by

*** percent between 2001 and 2003, and the actual volume of subject imports increased from *** million

pounds in 2001 to *** million pounds in 2003. Subject imports accounted for *** percent of apparent

U.S. consumption in 2003, up from *** percent in 2001.3

These are significant absolute increases in volume. The increase in subject imports between 2001

and 2003 was greater than total U.S. production of certain noncanned warmwater shrimp in any year of

the period of investigation. But these increases could not have come at the expense of the domestic

industry. As the extensive history on landings shows, the industry’s ability to increase its production is

constrained. Shrimp landings in 2001 were little different than in the mid-1980s, when apparent U.S.

consumption was perhaps half as large as in 2001.4

Nothing in the record suggests that the domestic industry could supply a significantly larger

volume than it is currently supplying. To be sure, U.S. shipments of certain non-canned warmwater

shrimp declined somewhat between 2001 and 2003, and inventories increased. But the increase in

inventories was modest relative to U.S. shipments and U.S. production and particularly modest compared
 5

 Calculated from Table C-2. U.S. shipments in 2001 were *** million pounds and ending inventories were ***

million pounds, for a total of *** million pounds; apparent U.S. consumption was *** billion pounds, for a market

share of *** percent. In 2003, U.S. shipments were *** million pounds and ending inventories were *** million

pounds, for a total of *** million pounds; U.S. apparent consumption was *** billion pounds, for a market share of

*** percent. 

 6 If prices for shrimp decline substantially below historic levels, it is possible to envision the supply curve for

domestically-caught shrimp declining to the left. This would happen when the U.S. shrimping fleet simply is no

longer able to afford to go out fishing. Anecdotal evidence suggests this was occurring by the end of the period of

investigation. 

 7 Tr. at 234-237 (Mr. Redmond), 294 (Mr. Herzig).

 8 Respondents suggested that prices declined because of increased efficiencies in shrimp farming in general. 

This might be true, but the record contains no specific information to support the conclusion that efficiency gains in

these particular industries led to the price declines occurring during this period of investigation.

54

to U.S. consumption. Indeed, had the domestic industry sold all of its domestic product, if its inventories

had been zero at the end of each year, its share of apparent U.S. consumption would have declined

between 2001 and 2003 anyway.5

 And it’s difficult to argue that, in the absence of subject imports, the

domestic industry would have produced significantly more in 2003. Landings in 2003 were virtually

identical to 2001 landings, suggesting that intervening increases in demand or subject imports had little

effect on harvesting efforts.

The record suggests that, over most of the period of investigation, there was no relationship

between the volume of imports and the volume of domestic production.6

 Thus, my volume analysis does

not rely on the increase in subject imports relative to domestic production.

The record in this case contains extensive evidence of quality differences between the domestic

like product and subject imports. Leaving those complaints aside, however, the disparities between

subject imports and the domestic like product–namely, the elasticity of the supply for subject imports

compared to the relative rigidity of domestic supply, and the significant difference in actual

volumes–suggest that these products were not perfect substitutes for each other in the market. A far

larger supply of subject imports was available in the market, and a more flexible supply as well; this

suggests that subject imports naturally would be more attractive to purchasers concerned with obtaining

high and consistent volumes. This is borne out by the testimony of purchasers who bought from both

sources and sold the subject imports as high-volume items and the domestic like product as boutique

items.7

Product-specific pricing data suggests a mixed pattern of overselling and underselling, with

underselling in approximately 60 percent of the quarterly comparisons. The domestic industry was able

to document only one lost sales allegation. However, the record still suggests that subject imports had a

negative effect on prices for the domestic like product. Prices declined during the period of

investigation.8

 While interchangeability between the products was limited, some competition did occur

between these products. In any case, subject imports dominated the market, and the sheer volume of

subject imports in the market ensured that subject imports would have a significant influence on price. 

Subject imports did not “displace” the domestic like product in the market. Rather, growing global

supplies of shrimp led to lower prices. These lower prices encouraged increased domestic consumption

but depressed prices for the domestic like product. I therefore agree with the conclusion of my colleagues

that a causal nexus exists between the large volume of subject imports and the corresponding price

declines for the domestic like product, and I join them in concluding that subject imports had significant

price-depressing effects.
 9

 This analysis does not include the potential effects of monies that might be distributed to the domestic industry

under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000.

55

Arguments were put forward by respondents that structural changes in the global shrimp market

have been so great that these changes have been predominantly responsible for price declines during the

period of investigation. Thus, any further price reduction related to dumping is too modest to create a

causal nexus between LTFV imports and the injury suffered by the domestic industry.

Although this case was made anecdotally in the hearing, and has an aura of plausibility to it, the

record contains little evidence that might substantiate it. No evidence was presented regarding changes in

the cost of shrimp production via aquaculture in the subject countries over time, and only limited data

were available regarding changes in global shrimp output during the period of investigation. Price data

for shrimp in other countries were quite limited. No case was made as to whether or how the U.S. shrimp

price might serve as a proxy for global prices. In the absence of such information, the record supports a

conclusion that subject imports, largely through price effects, are a cause of material injury to the

domestic industry.

I join my colleagues in finding that subject imports have had an adverse impact on the domestic

industry, and that the domestic industry is materially injured by reason of subject imports. However, the

economic efficiency and distributional equity of applying antidumping duties in these investigations can

be questioned. The value of U.S. shrimp consumption is now over $4 billion per year. With tradeweighted antidumping duties of approximately 25 percent, a scenario that continues consumption at the

same level with imports from the same suppliers would yield an increase in consumer costs of around $1

billion. 

The U.S. industry produces less than 15 percent of the shrimp consumed in the United States. Its

production is not likely to increase significantly to replace imports, even with orders in place. If prices

rise 25 percent and the value of U.S. consumption increases by $1 billion, the U.S. shrimp industry would

benefit by receiving about 15 percent of that increase, or roughly $150 million. Nonsubject imports make

up about 23 percent of U.S. consumption. If imports are not redistributed in the wake of the orders,

nonsubject import suppliers would be expected to receive greater benefits from higher prices

(approximately $230 million) than the domestic industry.9

 

The negative effects on consumers are likely to be less than indicated above. The marketplace

can be expected to operate in such a way that nonsubject imports, or imports subject to relatively modest

duties, will increase relative to imports subject to higher duties, and the price effects in the U.S.

marketplace will probably be less than the trade-weighted average duty of 25 percent. Consumers are

also likely to respond to higher shrimp prices by reducing shrimp consumption. 

The statutes do not permit the Commission to consider these issues in making injury

determinations in an antidumping investigation, and I have not done so here. Based on the record in these

investigations, I join with my colleagues in determining that the domestic industry producing certain

noncanned warmwater shrimp is materially injured by reason of subject imports.

 1

 In its final determinations, Commerce defined the subject product as--

“. . .certain warmwater shrimp and prawns, whether frozen or canned, wild-caught (ocean harvested) or

farm-raised (produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined

or not deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen or canned form.

The frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the scope of the

investigations, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTS), are

products that are processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through either freezing or canning and

that 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 investigation. 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 investigation.

Excluded from the scope are: (1) breaded shrimp and prawns (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 (0306.23.00.20 and

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (1605.20.05.10); and (5) dried shrimp and

prawns.”

The products covered by this scope are currently imported under the following HTS statistical

reporting numbers: 0306.13.0003, 0306.13.0006, 0306.13.0009, 0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015,

0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021, 0306.13.0024, 0306.13.0027, 0306.13.0040, 1605.20.1010, 1605.20.1030,

and 1605.20.1040; the HTS general duty rates for these subheadings are free, so that no duty applies to

products of Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, or Vietnam. 69 FR 71001 (China) and 69 FR 71008

(Vietnam), December 8, 2004. 69 FR 47081 (Brazil), 69 FR 47091 (Ecuador), 69 FR 47100 (Thailand),

and 69 FR 47111 (India), August 4, 2004.

In its final determinations, Commerce added certain dusted shrimp and certain battered shrimp to

the items excluded from the scope of these investigations. 69 FR 71000 (China) and 69 FR 71007

(Vietnam), December 8, 2004. Commerce defined certain dusted shrimp as: “ a shrimp-based product that

(1) 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) so that the entire surface of the shrimp flesh

is thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; and (4) the non-shrimp content of the end product

constitutes between 4 to 10 percent of the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being

frozen; and (5) is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after application of the dusting layer.” Commerce

defined certain battered shrimp as: “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.”

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

These investigations result from petitions filed by the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee,

Washington, DC, on December 31, 2003, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially

injured and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (LTFV) imports of certain 

frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns1

 from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and 
 2

 For the balance of this report, certain frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns will be referred to as

“warmwater shrimp.” Fresh shrimp (i.e., never frozen) which are excluded from the scope of the investigations will

be referred to as “fresh shrimp.” Further, there is no generally accepted agreement regarding the exact meanings of

and the difference between the terms, “shrimp and prawns.” Petitioners acknowledge that the terms are used

interchangeably to describe the same species. Therefore, for the purposes of this description of subject product, the

term, “shrimp,” refers to both shrimp and prawns. “Shrimp or prawn, that is the question,” found at 

http://www.simplyseafood.com/fishtips/fishtips.html and retrieved on January 22, 2004, and Petitioner response to

supplemental questions from Commerce, January 12, 2004, p. 14.

 3

 To the extent official statistics contain any imports of “dusted” or “battered” shrimp (which Commerce excluded

from the scope of investigations in its final determinations) imports may be slightly overstated.

I-2

Vietnam. Information relating to the background of these investigations is presented in table I-1.

Table I-1

Warmwater shrimp: Chronology of investigation Nos. 731-TA-1063-10681

Date Action

December 31, 2003 Petition filed with Commerce and the Commission; institution of Commission investigations 

January 27, 2004 Commerce’s notice of initiation

February 17, 2004 Commission’s preliminary determinations

July 16, 2004 Commerce’s preliminary determinations for China and Vietnam

August 4, 2004 Commerce’s preliminary determinations for Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand 

August 19, 2004 Commission’s scheduling of final phase investigations2

November 29, 2004 Commerce’s final determinations for China and Vietnam3

December 1, 2004 Commission’s hearing4

December 17, 2004 Commerce’s final determinations for Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand

January 6, 2005 Commission’s vote

January 21, 2005 Transmittal of Commission’s determinations to Commerce

1 Federal Register notices cited in this table are presented in app. A. 2

 69 FR 51472.

3

 69 FR 70997 and 69 FR 71005, respectively, December 8, 2004.

4

 A list of witnesses appearing at the Commission’s hearing is presented in app. B.

SUMMARY DATA

A summary of data collected in the investigations is presented in appendix C, table C-1. Except

as noted, U.S. industry data are based on questionnaire responses of 39 processors that accounted for ***

percent of U.S. production of certain frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (warmwater

shrimp)2

 during 2003. U.S. imports are based on Commerce statistics.3

NATURE AND EXTENT OF SALES AT LTFV AND CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

Commerce’s final LTFV margins and critical circumstances determinations are presented in table

I-2.
I-3

Table I-2

Warmwater shrimp: Commerce’s final LTFV margins and critical circumstances determinations

Country and firm LTFV margin

(percent)

Critical

circumstances Federal Register cite

Brazil: 

Central de Industrializacao e Distribuicao de Alimentos Ltda. (CIDA) 9.69 None alleged 69 FR 76910 (Dec. 23,

2004)

Norte Pesca, SA 67.80

Empresa de Armazenagem Frigorifrica Ltda/Maricultura Netuno, SA 9.69

All others 10.40

China:

Allied 84.93 Yes1 69 FR 70997 (Dec. 8, 2004)

Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic (ZG) 0.072 No

Red Garden 27.89 No

Yelin 82.27 Yes1

Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.

Beihai Zhengwu Industry Co., Ltd; 

Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd 

(Shantou Qiaofeng (Group) Co., Ltd.)

Chenghai Nichi Lan Food Co., Ltd.

Dalian Ftz Sea-Rich International Trading Co., Ltd.

Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants

Fuqing Dongwei Aquatic Products Industry Co., Ltd.

Gallant Ocean (Liangjiang) Co., Ltd.

Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food Allocation Co., Ltd.

Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd./Hainan Brich Aquatics Co., Ltd.

Kaifeng Ocean Sky Industry Co., Ltd.

Leizhou Zhulian Frozen Food Co., Ltd.

Pingyang Xinye Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.

Savvy Seafood Inc.

Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd.

Shantou Jinyuan District Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory

Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.

Shantou Ocean Freezing Industry and Trade General Corporation

Shantou Wanya Food Factory Co., Ltd.

Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business Co., Ltd.

Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company

Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Co., Ltd.

Shantou Freezing Aquatic Product Food Stuffs Co.

Shantou Jinhang Aquatic Industry Co., Ltd.

Xuwen Hailang Breeding Co., Ltd.

Yantai Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd.

Zhangjiang Bobogo Ocean Co., Ltd.

Zhangjiang Runhai Foods Co., Ltd.

Zhangjiang Go-Harvest Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.

Zhangjiang Newpro Food Co., Ltd.

Zhangjiang Universal Seafood Corp.

Zhangjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and 

Technology Co., Ltd.

Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd.

Zhoushan Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Co., Ltd.

Zhoushan Lizhou Fishery Co., Ltd.

55.23 Yes1

PRC-wide rate 112.81 Yes1

Ecuador: 

Exporklore, SA. 2.35 None alleged 69 FR 76913 (Dec. 23,

2004)

Exportadora de Alimentos, SA 2.62

Promarisco, SA 4.48

All others 3.26

Table continued on following page.
I-4

Table I-2--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Commerce’s final LTFV margins and critical circumstances determinations

Country and firm

LTFV margin

(percent)

Critical

circumstances Federal Register cite

India: 

Devi Sea Foods, Ltd. 5.02 No 69 FR 76916 (Dec. 23,

2004)

Hindustan Lever, Ltd. (HLL) 13.42

Nekkanti Seafoods, Ltd. 9.71

All others 9.45

Thailand: 

The Rubicon Group 5.79 No 69 FR 76918 (Dec. 23,

2004)

Thai I-Mei 6.20

UFP 6.82

All others 6.03

Vietnam:

Minh Phu Seafood Corp. 4.21 No 69 FR 71005 (Dec. 8, 2004)

Kim Ahn Co., Ltd. 25.76

Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods Processing Co. 4.13

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corp. 4.99

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.

Aquatic Products Trading Co.

Bac Lieu Fisheries Co., Ltd.

Coastal Fisheries Development Corp. (COFIDEC)

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import Export Co.

Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Co.

Can Tho Agriculture and Animal Products Import Export Co.

Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise

C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co., Ltd.

Cuu Long Seaproducts Co.

Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corp.

Hanoi Seaproducts Import Export Corp.

Investment Commerce Fisheries Corp.

Kien Giang Sea Product Import Export Co.

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Co.

Minh Hai Seaproducts Import Export Corp.

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint-Stock Co.

Nha Trang Seaproduct Co.

Pataya Food Industries (Vietnam) Ltd.

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing

Sao Ta Foods Joint-Stock Co.

Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Co.

Song Huong ASC Import Export Co.

Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corp.

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Co.

Viet Foods Co., Ltd.

Viet Nhan Co.

Vietnam Fish-One Co., Ltd.

Vinh Loi Import Export Co.

4.38

Vietnam-wide rate 25.76

1

In making its determination, Commerce noted: “In this case, the volume of imports of certain frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from the PRC

increased 51.57 percent from the critical circumstances base period (December 2002 through August 2003) to the critical circumstances

comparison period (September 2003 through May 2004).” 69 FR 42670, July 16, 2004. In its final determination, Commerce simply affirmed its

earlier finding. 

69 FR 71001, December 8, 2004.

2

De minimis.
 4

 Except as otherwise noted, information in this section is sourced from Conditions of Competition Affecting the

U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic Shrimp Industry (332 Shrimp Report), USITC, Pub. No. 1738, Aug. 1985.

 5

 69 FR 71000 (China) December 8, 2004. Scope is the same for all subject countries.

 6

 Shrimp sizes are generally referred to in terms of the number of shrimp, either head-on (whole) or head-off,

contained in a pound. Sizes range from as low as 5 to over 200 shrimp per pound. 

 7

 69 FR 71000 (China) December 8, 2004. Scope is the same for all subject countries.

 8

 The threshold of 20 percent for food preparations as outlined in the scope of these investigations is consistent

with the threshold for classification in chapter 16 of the HTS as outlined in note 2 to that chapter. 

 9

 69 FR 71000 (China) December 8, 2004. Scope is the same for all subject countries.

 10 Subject imports include, but are not limited to, shrimp from the following species: whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus

vannamei), 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). Petition, Exhibit I-1, Scope of

Investigation.

 11 U.S. shrimp fisheries in both the South Atlantic and the Gulf are seasonal, and seasonal peaks vary by species. 

I-5

THE SUBJECT PRODUCT

The imported warmwater shrimp products covered by the scope of these investigations are

described in detail in the “Background” section earlier in Part I. 

Physical Characteristics and Uses4

The imported products subject to these investigations are warmwater shrimp. The subject product

can be any species of warmwater shrimp5

 and can be harvested from the ocean (i.e., wild-caught) or

produced by aquaculture (i.e., farm-raised). The shrimp can be in any of a wide variety of processed

forms including head-on or head-off,6

 tail-on or tail-off, shell-on or peeled, and deveined or not

deveined.7

 They may be raw or further processed by cooking, skewering, or adding marinade, spices, or

sauces. Food preparations containing more than 20 percent by weight of shrimp are included in the

subject product.8

Shrimp are crustaceans that usually inhabit salt waters in coastal regions in the tropics and

subtropics. However, there are also coldwater and freshwater species of shrimp. The warmwater shrimp

subject to these investigations are either wild-caught or farmed in tropical or subtropical regions,9

 are 

generally classified in the Penaeidae family, and comprise shrimp of several genera and species.10 In the

United States, the catch of warmwater shrimp is composed principally of brown shrimp (Penaeus

aztecus), white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus), and pink shrimp (Penaeus duorarum), which are listed in

order of commercial importance. Shrimp vary greatly in size depending on age and species. They

typically grow to a harvestable size within one year; their size depends largely on the time of the year

they are harvested.11
 12 Species of coldwater shrimp, which are generally classified in the Pandalidae family, have different physical

characteristics than warmwater species. In particular, they are usually much smaller in size than warmwater species.

Coldwater shrimp are harvested and processed in cold water regions (e.g., the U.S. Pacific Northwest, New England,

Canada, Greenland, Iceland, and Norway). Petition, Exhibit I-1, Scope of Investigation.

 13 Petition, Exhibit I-1, Scope of Investigation.

 14 In its final LTFV determinations on China and Vietnam, Commerce also excluded certain dusted shrimp and

certain battered shrimp from the scope of these investigations. 69 FR 71000 (China) December 8, 2004. 

 15 Fisheries of the United States, 2003, National Marine Fisheries Service, Oct. 2003, p. 3.

 16 Id., p. 22.

 17 A relatively small amount of shrimp is used for bait. 

 18 Petition, Vol. II, p. 21.

 19 Fisheries of the United States, 2003, National Marine Fisheries Service, Oct. 2004, p. 86.

 20 See, testimony of Jonathan D. Appelbaum, President, Penguin Frozen Fish, hearing transcript, p. 93.

 21 Except as otherwise noted, information in this section is sourced from the 332 Shrimp Report.

I-6

Fresh shrimp (i.e., never frozen) in any form are excluded from the products subject to these

investigations. Likewise, coldwater shrimp12 in any form, shrimp in prepared meals, breaded shrimp, and

dried shrimp are also excluded from the subject product.13 14

In 2003, estimated U.S. commercial landings of warmwater shrimp totaled 276.9 million

pounds.15 In 2003, U.S. production of farm-raised shrimp was estimated to be 13.4 million pounds.16 

Canned and frozen warmwater shrimp are used principally for human consumption17 and are sold

primarily on the basis of size.18 Because the tail section is the edible portion and spoilage is more rapid

with heads on, most shrimp are marketed raw and frozen with heads off. The market tendency is for large

shrimp (less than 36 per pound, heads-off, shell-on basis) to be sold raw and frozen to restaurants, hotels,

and other food institutions; for small to medium shrimp (36 to 60 per pound) to be breaded, canned, or

sold at retail; and for extra small (61 to 70 per pound) and tiny shrimp (more than 70 per pound) to be

used by canners, driers, and producers of specialties.

Over the past decade U.S. consumption of shrimp increased steadily at an average compound

annual growth rate of 4.0 percent, and in 2003, U.S. annual per capita consumption of shrimp (all

preparations) reached a record of 4.0 pounds.19 It is estimated that 80 percent of shrimp in the U.S.

market are bought by restaurants.20

Production Process21

Harvesting

The U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic warmwater shrimp fleet is composed of thousands of vessels

and is spread across about two dozen port communities on the Gulf and South Atlantic coasts. The

vessels fall within one of three broad categories: recreational shrimpers, commercial bait shrimpers, and

commercial shrimpers. The catch of recreational shrimpers and commercial bait shrimpers is very small

in proportion to the catch of commercial shrimpers, who account for the great bulk of all U.S. Gulf and

South Atlantic warmwater shrimp landings. 

There are two categories of commercial shrimpers. Inshore shrimpers operate small boats

typically manned by one person on day-long trips in bays, estuaries, and shallow near-shore waters. Offshore shrimpers operate larger vessels typically manned by a crew of three in deeper waters out to and

beyond the 200-mile U.S. territorial limit. Some offshore vessels can freeze their catch and thus make

trips lasting several weeks. Most vessels are individually owned, often by the skipper. While horizontal

and vertical integration is limited, some shrimpers also process shrimp and/or own multiple vessels.
 22 See, testimony of Sal Versaggi, Versaggi Shrimp, conference transcript, pp. 21-22.

 23 Id., p. 23.

 24 Id., p. 23.

 25 See, testimony of Scott St. Pierre, Commercial Shrimp Fisherman, and Craig Wallis, Commercial Shrimp

Trawler Owner and Operator, conference transcript, pp. 27 and 32, respectively. Mr. St. Pierre stated, “As a boat

owner and captain, I keep 60 percent of what the dock gives me to pay for fuel, maintenance, gear, and repairs. The

crew gets 40 percent, and then share what's left after paying for ice and groceries.” Conference transcript, pp. 27-28.

Mr. Wallis in explaining the crew share stated, “Unlike most lines of work, the crew wages depend on the price of

shrimp. It works like this. When the trawler returns from sea, the shrimp are weighed and sorted by size, and the

price is determined for the catch. They only get 65 percent of the share to pay all expenses on the boat, and the

crews gets 35 percent. The captain only gets 55 percent of that, and he shares the other percentage with his other

two crew members.” Conference transcript, p. 32.

 26 See, testimony of Richard Gollot, Golden Gulf Coast Packing, conference transcript, p. 39, and 332 Shrimp

Report, p. 17.

 27 See, testimony of Scott St. Pierre, Commercial Shrimp Fisherman, conference transcript, p. 29.

 28 See Petitioners’ Conference Exhibits, p. 16, which is reproduced as figure I-I.

I-7

Offshore shrimpers use vessels that are typically 56 to 85 feet in length, constructed of steel, and

diesel-powered. Such vessels are often equipped with sophisticated electronic gear for navigation,

communication, and finding shrimp. Major costs of operating a vessel include crew share (wages) and

fuel as well as depreciation, mortgage payments, insurance, and maintenance on the vessel. Vessels catch

warmwater shrimp by towing one or more large, funnel-shaped nets. The U.S. fleet, especially that

portion in the Gulf, is relatively mobile and migrates with the seasonal warmwater shrimp populations or

away from areas of poor fishing. Therefore, vessels may land shrimp at different ports in different states. 

Some shrimp vessels are equipped to perform simple processing steps (e.g., deheading, washing, grading,

icing, or freezing) while at sea.22 Shrimp may be placed in mesh bags before freezing.23 Thus,

warmwater shrimp can be landed either whole or headed (heads-off) and either fresh or frozen, and

shrimp in different forms may be landed from the same trip.24 Upon unloading, shrimp are generally sold

at dockside to dealers or processors. As payment, the vessel’s crew typically receive a percentage of the

revenue generated by the catch.25

Because of the differing feeding habits, migration patterns, and habitats of the different species,

usually U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic shrimp vessels land one species at a time. Likewise, harvesting

activities and hence, landings in the U.S. Gulf and South Atlantic exhibit seasonal patterns that are

influenced by the natural patterns of development of the different species of warmwater shrimp. 

Processing

While some processors own their own boats, most have buying arrangements with several shrimp

vessels.26 After unloading, landings are transferred to processing facilities, which are often located

dockside, and undergo initial processing such as separating the shrimp from the ice,27 weighing, washing,

sizing, and grading.28 At this stage, shrimp may either be frozen in whole form (head-on, shell-on) or
 29 See, testimony of Richard Gollot, Golden Gulf Coast Packing, conference transcript, p. 39 and 332 Shrimp

Report, p. 17.

 30 See, Petitioners’ Conference Exhibits, p. 16.

 31 See, testimony of David Cook, VP, Specialty Seafood Trade, Bumble Bee, conference transcript, p. 49.

 32 See, testimony of Kevin McClain, Chicken of the Sea, conference transcript, p. 189 and testimony of John

Wendt, Seatech, hearing transcript, p. 256. 

 33 See, testimony of Richard Gollot, Golden Gulf Coast Packing, conference transcript, p. 37, and petitioners’

postconference brief, Exhibit 36. 

 34 Laitram machines are discussed in more detail in Petitioner’s postconference brief, Exhibit II-36. Jonsson

machines are discussed in more detail petitioners’ posthearing brief, Exhibit 42.

I-8

C ooked & Peeled

O ffloading Frozen 

Shrim p or Shrim p on Ice

W eighing and W ashing

Sizing and 

G rading

F reezing Freezing or 

Canning

H eadless & Shell-O n Raw & Peeled

Storing

S hipping

Shrim p Boats

D eheading Peeling C ooking

Production Process for F rozen and C anned W arm w ater Shrim p

may undergo a number of further steps such as deheading, peeling, deveining, and cooking.29 Resulting

from these steps are shrimp in a variety of forms (e.g., head-on, shell-on; headless, shell-on; raw, peeled;

and cooked, peeled). Regardless of their specific processed form, shrimp then are typically frozen with

the exception that cooked, peeled shrimp may be canned rather than frozen.30 If canned, the shrimp may

be graded for size after cooking.31 Canners are required to have thermal processing equipment to sterilize

the cans to insure that the final product is shelf-stable.32 Many processing steps (e.g., washing, grading,

peeling, deveining, and cooking) may be performed manually or mechanically using purpose-built

machinery.33 

Peeling can be done by one of two types of machines - the Laitram machine that operates by

pushing the shrimp tail out of its shell, or the Jonsson machine that needs to be fed manually but peels the

shrimp with cutting equipment. *** stated that it prefers the *** because the ***. It added that Laitram

machines are generally used in the United States on smaller warmwater shrimp.34

The processing of warmwater shrimp is conducted by a variety of operations. Dealers (a.k.a.

shrimp houses or fish houses) and packinghouses perform minimal processing steps (e.g., weighing,

washing, sorting, and packing) for other processors or distributors. Other processors, variously known as
 35 See Petition Vol. II, Exhibit II-1.

 36 See, testimony of Richard Gollot, Golden Gulf Coast Packing, conference transcript, p. 39 and 332 Shrimp

Report, p. 17.

 37 See, Petition Vol. II, Exhibit II-16.

 38 See, Petition Vol. II, Exhibit II-16.

 39 See, testimony of George Chamberlin, Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) , conference transcript, p. 148.

 40 McAbee, Brad, Craig Browdy, Raymond Rhoades, and Alvin Stokes, “Super-Intensive Success,” Industry

Briefs, U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Oct. 2003), p. 1.

I-9

freezers, peelers, breaders, and canners, produce the variety of processed forms of shrimp noted

previously and perform additional steps as such as breading, cutting (for sushi),35 and preparing specialty

items (e.g., dried shrimp, cocktails, cakes and patties, stuffed shrimp, creole, and gumbo).36

Aquaculture

A small but growing percentage of U.S. domestic production of warmwater shrimp is produced

by aquaculture (i.e., farm-raised).37 In 2003, an estimated 4.5 percent of U.S. production of warmwater

shrimp were farm-raised.38

Farm-raised shrimp are produced in a controlled environment, which involves several stages:

hatching eggs; growing shrimp through various larval stages; and growing post-larval shrimp to a mature,

marketable size. Most U.S. shrimp farming operations produce saltwater species of warmwater shrimp. 

Shrimp may be raised using one of three basic regimens: extensive, semi-intensive, and intensive. 

Extensive farming utilizes large ponds (approximately 150 acres) and very limited control of stocking,

feeding, water circulation, and predator control; semi-intensive farming involves smaller ponds and

somewhat more control of conditions and inputs; and intensive farming utilizes very small ponds

(approximately one-half acre) or covered raceways and very strict control of conditions and inputs. 

In addition to ponds, shrimp farms may include hatcheries, labs, quarantine facilities, nursery

raceways, and on-site processing plants.39 Shrimp aquaculture operations produce whole shrimp which

are sometimes further processed on-site or sold to off-site processors. On-site processing facilities may

be owned and operated by contractors.

According to the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program, opportunities to expand shrimp farming

in the United States are limited by three factors: environmental concerns regarding effluent water

discharges, high land costs in coastal regions, and a limited growing season.40 Growing conditions in the

United States are generally not as favorable as in other parts of the world; climate limits U.S. shrimp

farming operations to one or two crops annually.

Interchangeability and Customer and Producer Perceptions

Processors responding to questionnaires, in general, viewed wild-caught and farmed warmwater

shrimp as being the same, whereas importers were more likely to see differences in the two categories. 

The processors who did note differences between wild-caught and farmed warmwater shrimp often stated

that consumers were not willing to pay more for such differences, or were unable to discern such

differences except in particular regions of the country. Importers, on the other hand, noted differences in

quality (i.e., taste, texture, etc.), seasonal availability (i.e., year-round availability in consistent quantities

and sizes), and price (i.e., farmed warmwater shrimp having a lower, more stable price). More detailed

information on interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions can be found in Part II of this

report, Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.
 41 See, Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand,

and Vietnam (Preliminary Shrimp Report), USITC, Pub. No. 3672, p. 14.

I-10

Channels of Distribution

Both U.S. processor and importer questionnaire respondents reported selling warmwater shrimp

directly to distributors or retail customers as well as selling some of their product through brokers. 

Additionally, some of the importers reported further processing their imported product into another form

of subject warmwater shrimp (e.g., marinated or sauced) or into a nonsubject product (e.g., breaded

shrimp). More detailed information on channels of distribution can be found in Part II of this report,

Conditions of Competition in the U.S. Market.

Price

Information with regard to prices of warmwater shrimp is presented in Part V, Pricing and

Related Information, and appendix G of this report. 

DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT ISSUES

During the preliminary phase of the investigations, the parties made several arguments

concerning the definition of the domestic like product in these investigations. Petitioner urged the

Commission to define a single domestic like product consisting of all domestically produced merchandise

described in Commerce’s scope of investigation. The American Seafood Distributors Association 

(ASDA) argued for two domestic like products: (1) “basic processed shrimp” (shrimp that is merely

frozen and deheaded), and (2) “value added shrimp,” which includes both all other shrimp products

within the scope and breaded shrimp, an article expressly excluded from the scope. The Seafood

Exporters Association of India (SEAI) contended that “salad shrimp,” which it defined as a frozen shrimp

product with over 250 pieces to the pound, and giant freshwater prawns of the type Macrobrachium

rosenbergii should be defined as separate domestic like products. Thai respondents and Vietnamese

respondents argued that canned shrimp should be defined as a separate domestic like product. Finally, the

Louisiana Shrimp Association (LSA), a group of U.S. processors of warmwater shrimp (“processors”)

and U.S. harvesters of warmwater shrimp (“fishermen”) that supports the imposition of antidumping

duties but is not part of the petitioning coalition, contended that there should be a single domestic like

product, but that it should include fresh shrimp, an article expressly excluded from the scope definition.

In making its preliminary determinations, the Commission defined a single domestic like product

that included both fresh warmwater shrimp and the processed warmwater shrimp products within

Commerce’s scope definition. In including the fresh warmwater shrimp in its like product definition, the

Commission stated:

“Fresh warmwater shrimp is overwhelmingly sold in a processed form, and the initial stages of

processing do not significantly change the physical characteristics and uses of the product and

appear to add at most moderate value to the product. In light of this, we conclude that fresh

warmwater shrimp should be included in the same domestic like product as the processed

warmwater shrimp products within the scope definition.”41
 42 See, Preliminary Shrimp Report, pp. 4-15, for the discussion of the Commission’s like product determinations.

 43 Neither ASDA nor SEAI reasserted their like product arguments during the final phase investigations. See,

ASDA prehearing brief, pp. 6-7, fn. 5.

 44 See, Preliminary Shrimp Report, p. 13.

 45 See, Preliminary Shrimp Report, p. 13, fn. 70.

 46 See, prehearing brief of deKieffer & Horgan on behalf of XN (XN prehearing brief), November 22, 2004. On

July 19, 2004, XN filed a request with Commerce to find shrimp scampi outside the scope of these investigations. 

On November 29, 2004, Commerce determined that shrimp scampi is included in the scope of these investigations. 

In its determination, Commerce stated, in part:

“The Department disagrees with XN’s assertion that shrimp scampi should be excluded from the scope of

these investigations based on the fact petitioners excluded breaded shrimp. First, breaded shrimp, by virtue

of the name, has an outer coating that consists of a dry breading material. XN, however, explicitly states

that shrimp scampi is ‘coated with a liquid mixture.’ Further, in order for a product to be ‘battered,’ it must

be dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting, coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg

and/or milk, and par-fried. However in XN’s submission and ingredients list, neither rice flour, egg nor

milk are listed as ingredients for shrimp scampi. According to XN, scampi is composed of a ‘mixture of

soybean oil, seasoned dry ingredients, and a liquid butter alternative, as the majority of the coating

ingredients.’ Additionally, XN states that ‘each shrimp is coated individually (individually quick frozen,

IQF)’ with no mention of the product being par fried. Therefore, because XN’s shrimp scampi does not

meet either the definition for breaded or battered shrimp - the only types of coated products explicitly

excluded from the scope of these investigations - the Department finds shrimp scampi to be within the

scope of these investigations.” 

See, Memorandum from Edward C. Yang, Vietnam/NME Unit Coordinator, Import Administration, to Barbara E. 

Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, Antidumping Investigation on Certain Frozen

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People’s Republic of China, and the

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Scope Clarification on Shrimp Scampi, November 29, 2004, pp. 7-8.

I-11

With respect to the other like products proposed, the Commission determined that none of them

should be treated as separate like products;42 43 however, the Commission did state with regard to canned

shrimp:

“In light of the overlaps between canned and frozen shrimp in physical characteristics, end uses,

channels of distribution, and processing methods, we find for purposes of these preliminary

determinations that canned shrimp is not a separate domestic like product from frozen shrimp. In

any final phase investigations we will again examine whether canned shrimp should be defined as

a separate domestic like product.”44

Further, regarding canned shrimp, the Commission indicated that it would seek trade, pricing, financial,

and foreign industry data specifically pertaining to canned shrimp in the questionnaires in the final phase

investigations.45 Data gathered with respect to canned shrimp as a separate like product are presented in

appendix D.

During the final phase investigations, Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd. (XN), a producer and

exporter of subject merchandise from Thailand, requested that the Commission find shrimp scampi to be a

separate like product.46 In its prehearing brief, XN summarized its like product argument, as follows:

“Shrimp scampi has distinct physical characteristics from frozen and canned shrimp. 

Scampi is a higher value-added product and, hence, completely different from frozen and canned

shrimp. Its physical appearance is completely different. It’s taste, chemical composition, and

nutritional content is complete different. Its uses are completely different.
 47 See, XN prehearing brief, pp, 2-3. 

 48 Id., p. 15. Aside from these three firms, XN is aware of only itself and one Chinese firm as exporters of

scampi. ***. In the preliminary phase investigations, the Commission determined that ***. ***.

 49 XN prehearing brief, p. 16.

 50 See, testimony of Kevin Dempsey, Dewey Ballantine, counsel for petitioners, hearing transcript, pp. 56-57.

 51 See, testimony of Jonathan D. Applebaum, President, Penguin Frozen Fish, hearing transcript, p. 173.

I-12

Shrimp scampi is sold through different channels of distribution. The vast majority of

scampi is sold only in the retail channel, to grocery stores, supermarkets, and club-style stores. 

Moreover, even within that channel, there are separate buyers for scampi versus frozen and

canned shrimp. The vast majority of frozen shrimp is sold within the food service sector.

Shrimp scampi is produced in separate production lines/facilities from frozen and canned

shrimp. Since scampi is a coated product, it has much more added value than frozen and canned

shrimp. That value added is performed on completely different processing lines from frozen

shrimp and different facilities from canned shrimp.

Shrimp scampi is not interchangeable with frozen and canned shrimp. Scampi is a

completely self-contained, finished product. Its end uses are significantly limited, usually to

being used as an entree. Frozen and canned shrimp, on the other hand, are intermediate products. 

They are traditionally used as appetizers and ingredients in recipes (to then produce an entree or

salad, for example).

Shrimp scampi is sold at much different prices from frozen and canned shrimp. In an

apples-to-apples comparison, shrimp scampi is imported at prices up to 100% higher than frozen

shrimp. Then, wholesalers usually sell scampi to retailers at prices approximately 40% higher

than frozen shrimp.

U.S. classification and origin rules support a legal conclusion that shrimp scampi is a

different product from frozen shrimp. Shrimp scampi is imported under a different tariff category

from frozen shrimp, reflecting its further processed nature.”47

According to XN, there “appears to be only three U.S. producers, Fishery Products Int’l., Ltd.,

King and Prince Seafood Corp., and Red Chamber Company.”48 XN estimates that sales of scampi in the

U.S. market were 12 million pounds valued at $65 million.49 On a quantity and value basis, these figures

amount to 1.0 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively, of U.S. frozen and canned shrimp consumption in

2003. 

At the hearing in these final phase investigations, petitioners, when queried regarding shrimp

scampi, stated:

“One respondent also claims that shrimp scampi is a separate like product, but no clear

definition of this product is provided, which is not surprising as the term scampi is used to

describe various forms of shrimp products within the scope of the investigations. Thus, there is

no clear dividing line separating scampi from other shrimp products.”50

Further, testifying for the petitioners, Jonathan D. Applebaum, President of Penguin Frozen Fish, stated:

“In my 20 years experience, honestly I don't know of a wholesaler specifically marketing

a shrimp scampi product as a separate product. It's going to use the same raw material, no matter

what.”51

In its posthearing submission, XN offered the following regarding petitioners’ comments

concerning shrimp scampi.
 52 See, posthearing brief of deKieffer & Horgan on behalf of XN, December 8, 2004. 

I-13

“. . . since petitioners do not know what shrimp scampi is, they cannot be injured by it,

much less materially injured or threatened with material injury. Since petitioners have never

heard of this product, they cannot claim on behalf of the U.S. industry that material injury has

occurred.”52

 1

 With regard to different levels of preparation of warmwater shrimp, domestic processors stated that marinated

and sauced warmwater shrimp are a small part of the overall U.S. warmwater shrimp market. See, testimony of

Jonathan D. Applebaum, President, Penguin Frozen Foods, conference transcript, p. 99. Texas supermarket chain

H-E-B stated that 80 percent of its imported warmwater shrimp purchases are cooked shrimp, which it said are a

major benefit to consumers because of their ease of use. It added that while it does sell cooked domestic warmwater

shrimp, it is one of the few U.S. supermarkets to do so, and that it has difficulty obtaining cooked warmwater shrimp

from domestic sources. See, testimony of Rich Catanzaro, H-E-B, conference transcript, p. 174. *** did not know

why U.S. processors were not supplying cooked shrimp in larger quantities, but did say that cooked warmwater

shrimp had been a major growth area for imports. See, staff interview with ***. *** said that U.S. processors used

to cooked more shrimp, but that as U.S. cookers had switched to using imported raw shrimp, it was no longer

profitable to cook shrimp in the United States. *** cited cooked shrimp rings as an example of a product once

produced by U.S. processors but now not produced as much in the United States because of less expensive imports. 

See, staff interview with ***. 

 2

 Several firms submitted both processor and importer questionnaires. In the interest of not counting companies

twice, they were assigned either to “processor” or “importer” for the purposes of this chapter. *** were categorized

as processors while *** were categorized as importers.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. MARKET SEGMENTS

Warmwater shrimp are almost always intended for human consumption, but may be

canned or frozen, farm-raised or wild-caught, and processed to varying levels (e.g., peeled, deveined,

shell-off, tail-off, marinated, skewered, or sauced). There are also multiple species of shrimp both farmed

and wild-caught, as well as a range of sizes. Further discussion of these differences is contained at the

end of Part II.1

CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

For U.S.-processed warmwater shrimp, fresh shrimp are harvested (generally wild) and brought

to dock by fishermen. Some deheading, sorting, and freezing may take place on the fishing boats. 

Processors buy the fresh shrimp at the dock, and then may inspect, weigh, count, devein, peel, and cook it

before freezing or canning it. Some of the production will be put into inventory for later sale. Processors

may sell the warmwater shrimp to distributors or to retail customers directly, or have their sales handled

by brokers. The market is similar for importers of warmwater shrimp; however, importers may

sometimes import the warmwater shrimp and then process it themselves, either into another form of

warmwater shrimp (e.g., marinated or sauced) or into a nonsubject product (e.g., breaded shrimp). 

Both processors and importers serve a large national market. When asked to identify their

geographic market, 23 processors and 39 importers2

 (including importers of warmwater shrimp from all

subject countries) reported having a national market or a market that consisted of multiple regions of the

country. Only four processors and four importers reported serving only one regional market. Among

processors, 17 reported that 50 percent or more of their sales were between 100 and 1,000 miles from

their plant (including the only processor who reported 50 percent of its sales were within 100 miles),

while eight reported that 50 percent or more of their sales were more than 1,000 miles from their plant. 

Among importers, 17 reported that 50 percent or more of their sales were less than 100 miles from their

warehouse, eight reported that 50 percent of more of their sales were between 100 and 1,000 miles from

their warehouse, and eight reported that 50 percent or more of their sales were more than 1,000 miles

from their plant.
 3

 Respondents allege that U.S. fishermen have fished U.S. waters to near capacity in the past. See,

postconference brief of Akin Gump (counsel for ASDA), pp. 16-17. However, petitioners maintain that the U.S.

wild catch declined over 2000 to 2002. See, petition, exhibit II-17.

 4

 See, testimony of Sal Versaggi, Owner, Versaggi Shrimp Company, conference transcript, p. 90 and Craig

Wallis, Commercial Shrimp Trawler Owner and Operator, conference transcript, pp. 96-97, and Commission visit to

***. 

 5

 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) recently released a report characterizing the U.S. shrimp fishery

as suffering from overcapacity and too many fishermen. See, prehearing brief of ASDA, pp. 48-50. However,

petitioners, some of whom worked with the NMFS during the drafting of the report, said that the NMFS had no clear

estimate of how many shrimp boats actually were fishing even though the NMFS recommended reducing the number

of boats. Furthermore, petitioners said that the NMFS did not take into account reductions in the shrimp fishing fleet

that had already taken place, nor tried to estimate what effect a reduction in imports would have on the U.S. shrimp

fishery. See, testimony of Kevin Dempsey, Dewey Ballantine, counsel for petitioners, Kimberley Chauvin, owner of

Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, Sal Versaggi, owner of Versaggi Shrimp Company, and Jonathan D. Applebaum,

President, Penguin Frozen Foods, hearing transcript pp. 154-159. 

 6

 See, testimony of Scott St. Pierre, Commercial Shrimp Trawler Owner and Operator, conference transcript, pp.

26-27.

 7

 See, testimony of Russ Mentzer, King & Prince, conference transcript, pp. 227-228. Larger shrimp in particular

may be in shorter supply at some times of the year.

 8

 Penguin Frozen Foods stated that as a result of processors like itself holding inventory, domestic shrimp is

available year round. See, testimony of Jonathan D. Applebaum, President, Penguin Frozen Foods, conference

transcript, p. 89.

II-2

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS

U.S. Supply

Domestic Production

Based on available information, U.S. warmwater shrimp processors are likely to respond to

changes in demand with moderate changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-produced warmwater

shrimp to the U.S. market. The main contributing factor to the moderate degree of responsiveness of

supply is the availability of significant unused capacity, although there is ultimately a biological limit to

how much fresh shrimp can be fished from U.S. waters.3

U.S. supply of fresh shrimp

U.S. fishermen generally harvest white, pink, and brown shrimp from the Gulf, with white and

pink shrimp from the Carolina and Florida coasts, respectively.4

 U.S. shrimp fishermen primarily work

with shrimp as opposed to harvesting or processing other animals. For fishermen, the Gulf of Mexico is a

year-round fishery and changes to other harvests would be expensive. Likewise, their equipment

(trawlers, nets, etc.) are appropriate for catching shrimp but not other forms of fish or seafood.5

The U.S. supply of wild-caught fresh shrimp varies by season.6 The main fishing season is May

to December, but different parts of the year are better for particular species and sizes.7

 In addition to

shrimp being less available for biological reasons in certain parts of the year, several states in the Gulf

have regulated seasons. In the offseason (roughly January through April), some fishermen take time for

maintenance and upgrades while others continue fishing. Processors are able to maintain some supply of

warmwater shrimp during the offseason by freezing part of their in-season inventory for later sale.8

However, as supply of both fresh shrimp and warmwater shrimp is lower in the offseason, prices have
 9

 See, testimony of Craig Wallis, Commercial Shrimp Trawler Owner and Operator, and Richard Gollott, Golden

Gulf Coast Packing, conference transcript, pp. 34 and 39, respectively.

 10 In 1998, the WTO ruled against a U.S. law requiring imports to be harvested using TEDS, stating that the law

was applied differently to Asian suppliers than to Latin American ones. In 2001, the WTO Appellate Body ruled

that the United States was now in compliance with WTO rules, as it was supplying financial assistance to Asian

shrimp supplying nations and permitting other forms of conservation efforts. See “U.S. Wins WTO Case on Sea

Turtle Conservation,” Office of the United States Trade Representative, June 15, 2001, “The World Trade

Organization and Sea Turtles,” National Wildlife Foundation website (www.nwf.org/trade/turtleswto.html) and

“India etc. vs. US, ‘Shrimp Turtle,’” World Trade Organization website

(www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/edis08_e.htm).

 11 For example, see testimony of Sal Versaggi, Owner, Versaggi Shrimp Company, conference transcript, p. 86.

 12 Commission visit to ***.

 13 See, petitioners’ posthearing brief, pp. D-34-D-45 and exhibit 52.

 14 ***.

II-3

been historically higher in the offseason. Processors and fishermen describe this seasonal supply

characteristic of the U.S. warmwater shrimp market as a necessary cycle for fishermen and processors to

make money (through higher offseason prices) and gain time for needed repairs and upgrades. They

describe subject imports as reducing the value of their off-season inventories, forcing some fishermen and

processors into production slowdowns, postponement of needed maintenance, reduced insurance and

creditworthiness, and layoffs.9

U.S. wild-caught shrimp fishing and warmwater shrimp production are covered by multiple U.S.

government regulations, including the HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points), state boards

of health, and the mandatory use of TEDS (turtle excluder devices).10 U.S. processors stated that imports

of warmwater shrimp are inspected so rarely (allegedly less than 2 percent of imports) that the standard is

effectively different for U.S. and imported warmwater shrimp.11 In addition, *** alleged that imported

shrimp that fail chemical tests are often returned to the importer, who then can “port-shop” and return to

another U.S. port (where it may not be inspected).12 In their posthearing brief, petitioners submitted (1) a

GAO analysis of FDA inspections of seafood that confirmed some of these allegations about low levels of

testing and (2) the relevant laws that allow the potential for re-importation of rejected merchandise.13

When asked how regulations affect their own production, processors acknowledged that there

may be costs, but felt the costs were manageable and (for some) beneficial, and that pressure from lowpriced imports were far more of a problem. 

U.S. supply of frozen and canned warmwater shrimp

While 15 processors stated that they had not had any problem meeting their customers’ demand

since January 1, 2001, 12 other processors did reference shortages of particular types of warmwater

shrimp (particularly larger sizes) during the offseason periods. These 12 said that they could usually

avoid such seasonal supply shortages by freezing supply from better months. Moreover, several

processors stated that they were having trouble selling their current inventory at today’s low market

prices. 

When asked if their supply of frozen and canned warmwater shrimp is seasonal, most processors14

said that even if the supply of fresh wild-caught shrimp is seasonal, processors hold enough frozen

warmwater shrimp in inventory to make year-round sales. Several reported that they currently have more

frozen warmwater shrimp in inventory than they can sell.

Processors may handle other seafood items (especially if they bread shrimp in addition to

processing it), but 31 processors reported that they did not use their equipment for processing shrimp in

order to process other items. Some processors may process a limited amount of oysters as well, but in
 15 See, testimony of Andrew Blanchard, Pearl, Richard Gollott, Golden Gulf Coast Packing, and Craig Wallis,

Commercial Shrimp Trawler Owner and Operator, conference transcript, pp. 97-99.

 16 Petitioners describe their problem with subject imports as being more price and excess volume related. See,

testimony of Jonathan D. Applebaum, President, Penguin Frozen Foods, conference transcript, p. 100.

 17 See, for example, “Shrimp Success Hurts Asian Environment, Group Says” by James Owen for National

Geographic News, at news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0621_040621_shrimpfarm.html (downloaded

November 4, 2004). Whether or not shrimp farming is an environmentally sustainable activity has been debated by

several environmental groups (saying it may not be) and the Global Aquacultural Alliance (saying that it is). See

“Farming shrimp, harvesting hunger” by Susan Stonich and Isabel De La Torre at

www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/2002/w02v8n1.html . The GAA has worked to make shrimp farming in Thailand

and other countries more environmentally friendly and long-term sustainable. See www.gaalliance.org/ceissu5.html

(downloaded on November 5, 2004). 

 18 Different subject country governments used different methods. See petition, volume II, pp. 43-44, 46, 48, 49,

51, and 53-54, and exhibits II-35, 36, 37, 38, 45, 46, 47, 50, and 51 as well as the website of the Indian government’s

(continued...)

II-4

some states (e.g., Louisiana) shrimp must be processed on equipment used only for processing shrimp in

order to avoid contamination issues.15

Twenty processors reported changes in their plants, including closing production lines and other

reductions in production, as a result of pressure from subject imports. Twelve reported no changes in

their plants. Many described their major production constraint as the ability to make a profit on sales of

warmwater shrimp, as well as the ability of U.S. shrimp fishermen to make a profit. While 14 processors

reported no changes in the product range or marketing of the warmwater shrimp they sell, 13 others

reported that increased subject imports had caused deleterious effects such as large inventories and shrimp

being sold primarily on price. Several of these 13 described changing their target markets to sell more

expensive larger shrimp, sell to smaller volume customers, and/or sell to grocery stores more. *** said it

was trying to sell directly to end users now to save money on distribution.

Capacity utilization at U.S. processing facilities fell from 2001 to 2003, leaving room for

expansion. The domestic wild catch landings of fresh shrimp fell from 2001 to 2002 but recovered

somewhat in 2003. U.S. processors’ inventories are up since 2001.

Subject Imports

Subject imports constitute the majority of the U.S. warmwater shrimp market, and even

petitioner’s witness stated that the current volume of the U.S. warmwater shrimp market could not be

supplied by U.S. production and nonsubject imports alone.16 Imports from subject countries include both

farmed and wild-caught warmwater shrimp. However, production of farmed warmwater shrimp plays a

much more important role in subject country production than in U.S. production. Shrimp of many

different species can be farmed, and shrimp farms are usually designed principally for export. Importer

responses to Commission questionnaires often stressed the difference between imported farm-raised

warmwater shrimp and domestic wild-caught warmwater shrimp.

In addition to the advantages stressed by importers, farmed production of warmwater shrimp in

subject countries often has additional advantages of less strict rules regarding effluent release,17 less

expensive labor, and substantial governmental assistance. Petitioners submitted newspaper and magazine

articles documenting that the subject country governments have been active in assisting the growth of

their warmwater shrimp industries, using subsidies, loans, prohibitively high tariffs on imports of

warmwater shrimp from other countries, government efforts in research and development and in

developing a seed stock of warmwater shrimp for farms, government aid in response to epidemics that

reduced warmwater shrimp populations, and training.18
 18 (...continued)

Marine Products Exports Development Authority (MPEDA), which outlines the subsidies and other assistance

available for Indian warmwater shrimp farmers at www.mpeda.com//aquaculture/Subsidyscheme.htm (downloaded

August 26, 2004). In addition, international lenders (such as the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and InterAmerican Development Bank) have historically assisted shrimp aquaculture development in at least India among

subject countries. See “Choosing the Road to Sustainability” at www.earthisland.org/map/rdstb.htm (downloaded

July 19, 2004) .

 19 See, testimony of George Chamberlain, GAA, hearing transcript, pp. 220-225 and 290-291.

 20 *** also mentioned more marketing of macrobracium rosenbergii.

II-5

George Chamberlain of the Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) described shrimp farming in

both subject and nonsubject countries as a growing and successful way of producing low cost warmwater

shrimp. He said that farming had begun in the 1980s and that the shrimp farming industry had suffered

several periods of short supply due to problems with shrimp diseases and land use, among other issues. 

However, he described shrimp farming as having overcome many of these difficulties through the use of

better technology, and said that the increased ability to prevent shrimp disease through use of resistant

shrimp breed stocks was the most important factor in allowing increased worldwide shrimp harvests.19

Imports include both white and black tiger shrimp species, and the overwhelming majority of

importers imported from more than one subject country, with at least 19 importers importing from all, or

all but one, subject countries. In addition, subject importers frequently reported importing from

nonsubject countries. Several processors also imported, including ***. Of the processor/importers, ***

stating that it imported a small amount of warmwater shrimp in 2002 because of production shortages, but

no longer did so due to low import quality and frequent illegal additives. 

When asked how regulations affect their ability to supply warmwater shrimp, most importers

stated that the regulations either did not have an effect or that their product was able to meet the

government standards. *** said that regulations make it purchase only from reputable companies. 

Generally, importers reported that regulations in other countries had little or no effect on their ability to

supply warmwater shrimp, but *** said that differences in antibiotics tolerance levels in the United

States, EU, and Japan had led exporting countries to target markets where their products have a higher

chance of being successfully imported. Some importers, however, stated that U.S. regulatory agencies

(i.e., the FDA) were tougher on imports than U.S. production, and often held imports at points of entry.

Twenty-one importers stated that their product range and marketing had changed since January 1,

2001. They stated that subject imports offer standardized sizes, lower overseas labor costs, and quality

that were allowing an increased variety of final, further processed, products (such as cooked, skewered,

sauced, e-z peel, shrimp rings, butterfly tail-on, combinations with rice bowls, etc.) and thus more

marketing of warmwater shrimp by retailers. In addition, importers *** stated that some subject countries

are switching to farm-based production of more white shrimp,20 a species that allows higher growth

densities, instead of black tiger shrimp. However, 20 importers stated that they had not changed their

product range or marketing for warmwater shrimp.

When asked about seasonality of both domestic warmwater shrimp and imports, purchasers

tended to report that U.S. warmwater shrimp was more seasonal than imports from subject countries. 

However, some purchasers who described U.S. warmwater shrimp as seasonal described availability as

lower in the offseason, and not necessarily non-existent. Purchasers were more likely to describe subject

imports as having year round availability, but there was some awareness of seasonality from some

countries in particular sizes and/or species.

Subject imports, when considered together, are not as seasonal as domestic production. When

one country’s season ends or when its supply is interrupted due to disease, other subject warmwater

shrimp is usually available. Importers did cite a few examples of seasonality in subject countries

(although not as many as were cited in importer responses to similar questions in the preliminary phase of
 21 Twenty-two importers stated that they had not had problems in supplying their customers’ demands. Those

importers who did cite supply problems often described them as occasional or focused on a particular size or a

particular country of origin, with FDA inspections and demand from other countries also mentioned as reasons why

importers might have difficulty supplying their U.S. customers. Five importers cited the current investigations as

impairing their ability to supply warmwater shrimp.

 22 Chloramphenicol may help or be perceived as helping against diseases to which high density farmed shrimp are

vulnerable.

 23 See, testimony of Kevin Dempsey, Dewey Ballatine, Sal Versaggi, Owner, Versaggi Shrimp Company, and

Richard Gollott, Golden Gulf Coast Packing, conference transcript, pp. 89-98. Thailand’s loss of GSP status was

unconnected to food safety issues. See staff interview with Kenneth Pierce, Wilkie Farr, February 4, 2004. In

addition, the ASDA stated that the EU has now decided to restore Thailand’s GSP status in 2005. See, testimony of

Warren Connolly, Akin-Gump (counsel for ASDA), hearing transcript, p. 348. 

 24 See, testimony of George Chamberlain, Global Aquaculture Alliance, Warren Connelly, Akin Gump, Jose

Cyriac, Marine Products Export Development Authority of India, Matthew Nicely, Wilkie Farr, Kenneth Pierce,

Wilkie Farr, conference transcript, pp. 220-224.

 25 See, testimony of George Chamberlain, Global Aquaculture Alliance, Warren Connelly, Akin Gump, Jose

Cyriac, Marine Products Export Development, Matthew Nicely, Wilkie Farr, Kenneth Pierce, Wilkie Farr,

conference transcript, pp. 220-224. In addition, Thai processors noted that the EU has removed Thailand from its

mandatory testing list. See, postconference brief of Thai respondents, pp. 6-7.

 26 See, testimony of George Chamberlain, Global Aquaculture Alliance, and Matthew Nicely, Wilkie Farr,

conference transcript, pp. 224-225, and exhibit 4, postconference brief of Vietnamese respondents.

II-6

the investigations). In addition, weather and farming-related diseases can affect availability. However,

overall, importers stated that, because imported shrimp from subject countries is farm-raised and because

importers can sell warmwater shrimp from multiple sources and sell out of inventory, imported frozen

warmwater shrimp is available year round.21

Petitioners described some subject imports as having sometimes tested for levels of antibiotics

(specifically chloramphenicol22) that were unacceptable to the EU and Japan, leading to more testing of

some products (specifically Thai warmwater shrimp exported to the EU). Petitioners allege that as a

result of increased EU testing, and additionally as a result of Thailand losing its GSP status with the EU,

subject imports were diverted into the United States.23 Respondents collectively deny these allegations.24

They described the increased chloramphenicol incident as a mistaken and no longer used response to

white spot disease (a viral disease), and stated that EU and Japanese testing and tariffs have not affected

all subject countries, nor prevented subject countries from increasing their exports of warmwater shrimp

to the EU and Japan.25 Respondents also said that switching the entire production process for warmwater

shrimp (i.e., breeding, ponds, and processing) to farming another animal would be difficult and

expensive. However, the ponds themselves can be used for or switched to other fish production,

including tilapia, catfish, and milkfish, depending on the salinity of the pond. Ecuador and Vietnam have

seen some such switching to tilapia and catfish.26 

Brazil.-- Based on available information, Brazilian processors are likely to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of warmwater shrimp to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are large alternative export

markets and the rapid growth in capacity of the Brazilian warmwater shrimp industry over 2001 through

2003. While the low level of inventories and a small home market would constrain the supply

responsiveness, they are not likely to outweigh the effects of the growing available capacity and

alternative markets.
 27 The prehearing brief of Vietnamese respondents discusses limitations on future shipments of Vietnamese

warmwater shrimp to the United States, including capacity restrictions, alternate markets, and a developing home

market. In addition, Vietnam has a larger (though still small) proportion of its production of warmwater shrimp

going to its own home market than any other subject country. However, while these projections may have merit, the

Vietnamese industry showed high capacity utilization in 2001 and 2002, and yet still managed to increase actual

shipments to the United States substantially in 2002 and 2003. It remains to be seen if the projections of reduced

Vietnamese warmwater shrimp shipments to the United States will become an observable reality or not.

II-7

China.-- Based on available information, Chinese processors are likely to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of warmwater shrimp to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the rapid growth in capacity

of the Chinese warmwater shrimp industry over 2001 through 2003 and available capacity in the current

industry. While the low (though increasing) level of inventories and a small home market would

constrain the supply responsiveness, they are not likely to outweigh the effects of the growing available

capacity and alternative markets.

Ecuador.-- Based on available information, Ecuadorian processors are likely to respond to

changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of warmwater shrimp to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the large

existing capacity of the Ecuadorian warmwater shrimp industry over 2001 through 2003, the large

available capacity in the current industry, and large alternative export markets. While the low level of

inventories and a small home market would constrain the supply responsiveness, they are not likely to

outweigh the effects of the growing available capacity and alternative markets.

India.-- Based on available information, Indian processors are likely to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of warmwater shrimp to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the large existing capacity of

the Indian warmwater shrimp industry over 2001 through 2003, the low level of capacity utilization in the

current industry, and large alternative export markets. While the small home market would constrain the

supply responsiveness, it is not likely to outweigh the effects of the growing available capacity and

alternative markets.

Thailand.-- Based on available information, Thai processors are likely to respond to changes in

demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of warmwater shrimp to the U.S. market. The

main contributing factors to the high degree of responsiveness of supply are the large existing capacity of

the Thai warmwater shrimp industry over 2001 through 2003, high levels of inventories, and large

alternative export markets. While a small home market would constrain the supply responsiveness, it is

not likely to outweigh the effects of the available capacity and alternative markets. 

Vietnam.-- Based on available information, Vietnamese processors are likely to respond to

changes in demand with large changes in the quantity of shipments of warmwater shrimp to the U.S.

market. The main contributing factor to the high degree of responsiveness of supply is the growth in

capacity of the Vietnamese warmwater shrimp industry over 2001 through 2003. While high capacity

utilization rates and home market sales would constrain the supply responsiveness, they are not likely to

outweigh the effects of the growing available capacity.27
 28 Commission trip to ***. 

 29 See, petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 22.

 30 See, testimony of Jonathan D. Applebaum, President, Penguin Frozen Foods, conference transcript, pp. 50 and

121.

 31 In addition to importer questionnaires, see also, testimony of Bill Herzig, Darden Restaurants, conference

transcript, pp. 157-159. Prepared warmwater shrimp has maintained its price levels at the consumer level even as

warmwater shrimp prices have fallen, perhaps suggesting that demand has been growing at close to the same rate as

total supply. 

 32 Commission visit to ***.

II-8

Nonsubject Countries

Imports of warmwater shrimp from nonsubject countries are available both as farmed and wildcaught. Mexico provides wild-caught warmwater shrimp with the same seasonal supply surge as U.S.

production. *** cited Mexican warmwater shrimp as a long-term supply source for the U.S. market, with

much of the product coming through importer Ocean Garden. *** described this Mexican warmwater

shrimp as a high quality product that generally sells at a higher price than U.S. shrimp.28 Other major

nonsubject country sources, generally for farmed shrimp, include Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, and

Venezuela. While nonsubject imports have risen over the last year, including from Indonesia, petitioners

submitted newspaper articles quoting Indonesian officials as concerned that Indonesia (possibly through

licensed Indonesian exporters in Singapore) is being used as a transshipment zone for shrimp from subject

countries. Concerned about transshipment, Indonesia imposed a three-month ban on shrimp imports from

China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam after shrimp exports from Indonesia surged in the first eight months

of 2004.29

U.S. Demand

Demand Characteristics

Demand for shrimp comes from retail sellers of both prepared and unprepared warmwater shrimp

(grocery stores) and restaurants, with restaurants making up an estimated 80 percent of total

consumption.30 In recent years, larger restaurant chains and seafood processors (i.e., breaders, skewers,

and marinaters) have demanded warmwater shrimp in larger quantities, with year-round availability,

standardized sizes, and lower prices. These new market segments have generally been met with imports,

particularly farm-raised subject imports.31

*** said that U.S. warmwater shrimp demand generally increases from October through

Christmas due to more frequent holidays and parties. It said that January is a slow period with a spike for

the Super Bowl, followed by another lull and then an increase in demand during Lent. Late spring and

early summer is another lull with spurts of activity for holidays such as the Fourth of July and Memorial

Day, and then September is probably the worst month for demand. Severe weather, such as hurricanes, in

the Gulf can also slow demand.32

When asked if the selling prices they charge to customers for products involving shrimp had

changed, 19 purchasers said their prices had changed while eight said they had not. Breaders ***

reported some price changes for breaded and/or battered shrimp, including decreases, due to the changing

cost of warmwater shrimp. However, *** reported that while warmwater shrimp prices had fallen, its

promotional costs for shrimp had risen. Grocery chain *** reported that it passes cost changes on to

consumers, with its seafood department reporting that in 2001, 31/35 farmed shrimp retailed at $10.30 per

pound but in 2004 at $6.55. Likewise, *** reported that 41/50 count headless shrimp from Ecuador had

dropped from $3.75 per pound in 2001 to $3.05 per pound in 2003, and *** reported passing cost
 33 See “Getting Skewered by Shrimp Prices,” Wall Street Journal, October 16, 2003. Some purchasers, such as

Darden Restaurants, have stated that limited-time promotions have offered lower-priced shrimp to consumers. See,

testimony of Bill Herzig, Vice President for Seafood Purchasing, Darden Restaurants, hearing transcript, p. 226. 

 34 Ten processors reported increased demand for shrimp, but 12 processors actually reported decreased demand,

but then explained that their answers mean decreased demand for U.S. warmwater shrimp due to increased

competition from subject imports. Among processors who reported increased demand, many still said that the

increased demand had mostly gone to lower cost imports, as consumers did not differentiate between U.S. and

imported warmwater shrimp. ***.

 35 Thirty-eight importers described demand for frozen warmwater shrimp as having increased, with two stating it

was unchanged, and one stating it had fallen because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

II-9

reductions along to consumers. *** said that both domestic and imported prices had fallen since 2001, as

had prices of shrimp rings. However, *** stated that while there had been some price variations for its

products, there had not been across-the-board price reductions. Some restaurant chains, though, such as

***, stated that menu prices are not driven by shrimp prices, or that menu price changes are infrequent

and tied to larger promotional activity, not just to the price of one raw material.

Overall, nine purchasers reported that demand for their products incorporating warmwater shrimp

had increased, six reported that demand was unchanged, and one, ***, reported that it was producing

fewer products using shrimp. Of the nine purchasers that reported increased demand for their products

incorporating warmwater shrimp, seven reported that this increase had led to their own increase in

purchases of warmwater shrimp. *** explained that the increase was due both to more demand as shrimp

became a more widespread menu item and ***. 

Demand Trends

Overall demand for warmwater shrimp is up, even if consumers have not necessarily seen lower

prices for warmwater shrimp at grocery stores or restaurants.33 Processors cited low prices of imported

shrimp as the explanation for the increased consumption,34 while importers were more likely to describe

an increase in demand, describing increased health consciousness as well as the availability of a lowpriced, standardized product, and overall increased marketing of seafood and particularly shrimp.35

***.

Purchasers were asked if they had made a significant increase in the volume or frequency of

purchases in the last three years. Twenty-one purchases said yes, generally citing increases due to

increased demand, increased promotions, and seasonal demand at holidays, although *** cited decreases

due to the tariffs from these investigations. ***, however, reported a decrease due to its shift away from

***. Thirteen purchases said they had not had a significant change.

Substitute Products

In general, there are few, if any, close substitutes for warmwater shrimp. While other proteins

may be consumed, they offer different tastes, textures, and presentations. Seventeen processors and 20

importers stated that there were no substitutes for warmwater shrimp. Twelve processors and 16

importers said that the prices of shrimp substitutes did not affect the price of shrimp. Thirteen importers

did list other seafood as substitutes, including coldwater shrimp, a smaller shrimp that is not subject to

these investigations. Three importers mentioned meats as potential substitutes for warmwater shrimp. 

Four processors also listed other seafoods (including coldwater shrimp and fresh shrimp) as substitutes. 

Among purchasers, 19 said that there were no substitutes for warmwater shrimp, while three listed

coldwater shrimp and five listed other proteins as substitutes.
 36 See, for example, testimony of Bill Herzig, Vice President for Seafood Purchasing, Darden Restaurants, Russ

Mentzer, CEO and President of King & Prince, and Peter Redmond, Vice President for Deli/Seafood, Wal-Mart, 

hearing transcript, pp. 229, 238-246, and 237 respectively.

 37 See, for example, testimony of Richard Gollot, Treasurer of Golden Gulf Coast, hearing transcript, pp. 116-

117.

 38 Several firms submitted both processor and importer questionnaires. In the interest of not counting companies

twice, they were assigned either to “processor” or “importer” for the purposes of this question. *** were categorized

as processors while *** were categorized as importers.

 39 Some processors and importers said that U.S. wild-caught warmwater shrimp has a better flavor than farmraised warmwater shrimp (although other importers also believed that farmed warmwater shrimp had a milder and

more consistent flavor preferred by consumers). Various importers alleged that U.S. wild-caught shrimp is often on a

shrimp boat for weeks before being processed and frozen, and thus may need more preservative chemicals

(sulphites) than farm-raised warmwater shrimp. However, in a Commission visit to Tarpon Springs, ***. 

Commission visit to ***. 

II-10

Cost Share

For most end-use products prepared with shrimp, including breaded and marinated shrimp, the

shrimp itself remains a high part of the cost of the final product, with most purchasers reporting that

shrimp was 50 to 86 percent of the cost of breaded shrimp and 70 to 90 percent of the cost of marinated

shrimp or shrimp scampi. However, *** reported that shrimp could be a lesser percentage of plate meals

such as ***. 

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Most sales of warmwater shrimp are made out of inventory. Twenty-three processors and 20

importers described 90 percent or more of their sales as coming out of inventory, while an additional four

processors and six importers described over half their sales as coming out of inventory. Sales out of

inventory generally had lead times of 10 days or less. Only one processor and eight importers reported

that half or more of their sales were produced to order, with processors reporting lead times of one to

three weeks on these orders, and importers reporting lead times of three days to four months. 

Comparisons of Domestic Products and Subject Imports

Respondents and some purchasers alleged that U.S. warmwater shrimp is not available in

sufficient quantity or quality (in terms of peeling, preparation, uniformity and handling) to supply large

purchasers who bread and/or sell to large chain restaurants.36 Processors were more likely to say that U.S.

and imported warmwater shrimp is basically interchangeable on quality issues, and that U.S. processors

had supplied large purchasers in the past (before the recent arrival of larger volumes of imports).37

In the Commission questionnaires, processors and importers were asked to assess how

interchangeable warmwater shrimp from the United States was with warmwater shrimp from subject

countries and nonsubject countries. Their answers are summarized in tables II-1 and II-2.38 Processors

generally described U.S. and imported shrimp as interchangeable.39 However, *** stated that some of the

subject countries produce a lot of black tiger shrimp, and that this species is somewhat less well received

in the United States than other species of warmwater shrimp. However, *** stated that other species of

warmwater shrimp from subject countries are interchangeable with U.S. warmwater shrimp. Importers

cited differences in species (white, brown, and pink shrimp vs. black tiger), sizes, uniformity (with U.S.
II-11

warmwater shrimp allegedly less uniform), and level of processing (e.g., U.S. warmwater shrimp is often

PUD (peeled not deveined) while imports are tail-on peeled for further processing), and workmanship as

key hindrances to interchangeability between U.S. and subject country imports, and to a lesser extent

among the individual subject countries. 

Table II-1

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ perceived degree of interchangeability of warmwater shrimp

produced in the United States and other countries

Perceived

degree of

interchangeability Brazil China Ecuador India Thailand Vietnam Nonsubject

United

States

21 always

3 frequently

1 some

1 never

26 always

1 frequently

0 some

1 never

24 always

2 frequently

0 some

1 never

18 always

5 frequently

1 some

1 never

23 always

3 frequently

1 some

1 never

23 always

2 frequently

2 some

1 never

15 always

3 frequently

0 some

1 never

Brazil

22 always

1 frequently

0 some

0 never

21 always

1 frequently

0 some

1 never

17 always

2 frequently

1 some

1 never

20 always

 2 frequently

1 some

0 never

20 always

1 frequently

2 some

0 never

15 always

2 frequently

0 some

 0 never

China

21 always

3 frequently

0 some

0 never

17 always

3 frequently

2 some

0 never

21 always

3 frequently

1 some

0 never

21 always

3 frequently

1 some

0 never

15 always

3 frequently

0 some

0 never

Ecuador

17 always

3 frequently

2 some

0 never

20 always

3 frequently

1 some

0 never

20 always

2 frequently

2 some

0 never

15 always

3 frequently

0 some

0 never

India

18 always

2 frequently

2 some

0 never

18 always

2 frequently

2 some

0 never

14 always

3 frequently

5 some

0 never

Thailand

22 always

2 frequently

1 some

0 never

15 always

3 frequently

0 some

0 never

Vietnam

16 always

3 frequently

0 some

0 never

Note.– “some” means “sometimes” (shortened for space reasons).

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.
II-12

Table II-2

Warmwater shrimp: Importers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of warmwater shrimp

produced in the United States and other countries

Perceived

degree of

interchangeability Brazil China Ecuador India Thailand Vietnam Nonsubject

United

States

3 always

5 frequently

11 some

6 never

4 always

3 frequently

16 some

6 never

3 always

4 frequently

11 some

8 never

2 always

3 frequently

11 some

12 never

3 always

2 frequently

13 some

12 never

2 always

2 frequently

10 some

16 never

2 always

3 frequently

13 some

5 never

Brazil

5 always

11 frequently

8 some

1 never

6 always

15 frequently

6 some

0 never

3 always

8 frequently

9 some

7 never

4 always

9 frequently

11 some

3 never

3 always

7 frequently

10 some

7 never

4 always

9 frequently

10 some

0 never

China

9 always

11 frequently

10 some

1 never

4 always

7 frequently

11 some

8 never

7 always

9 frequently

13 some

3 never

5 always

7 frequently

12 some

6 never

4 always

10 frequently

8 some

1 never

Ecuador

4 always

7 frequently

9 some

8 never

5 always

11 frequently

11 some

2 never

3 always

5 frequently

12 some

6 never

4 always

9 frequently

12 some

0 never

India

6 always

8 frequently

14 some

3 never

6 always

10 frequently

12 some

1 never

4 always

9 frequently

11 some

0 never

Thailand

7 always

13 frequently

11 some

0 never

6 always

9 frequently

10 some

0 never

Vietnam

3 always

8 frequently

11 some

0 never

Note.– “some” means “sometimes” (shortened for space reasons).

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

Purchasers were also asked to assess how interchangeable warmwater shrimp from the United

States was with warmwater shrimp from subject countries and nonsubject countries. Their answers are

summarized in table II-3. Purchasers’ answers varied widely due to their different interpretations of the

word “interchangeable.” *** remarked that warmwater shrimp from all countries was always

interchangeable with all other countries’ warmwater shrimp, but noted that in describing

“interchangeability,” it meant “can {the shrimp} physically be used in the same applications”

independently of availability. It indicated in answers to other questions that availability of U.S.

warmwater shrimp was a concern. Eleven purchasers mentioned species difference as a reason to mark a

country comparison “sometimes” or “never” interchangeable. Purchasers also cited quality differences,

flavor differences between farmed and wild shrimp, size, price, alleged U.S. use of sodium triphosphate,

and extent of peeling as important factors affecting interchangeability. *** noted that its customers will

be more willing to substitute between shrimp from different countries when price differences are larger. 

*** described U.S. shrimp as generally lower quality than Chinese, Indian, Thai, and Vietnamese
II-13

warmwater shrimp in specific size ranges. *** said that China, India, Thailand, and Vietnam (especially

Thailand and Vietnam) have high capacities for cooking shrimp, while the United States has “zero”

capability and Brazil and Ecuador have little capability, restricting interchangeability. It added that U.S.

interchangeability with other countries is declining because the U.S. industry does not have sufficient

value added offerings such as cooked, EZ peel, and peeled shrimp. *** stated that it can not buy head-on

from China and Thailand, and mainly buys head-on from U.S. and South American suppliers. *** stated

that Indian warmwater shrimp has a different taste and texture than warmwater shrimp from most other

subject countries and the United States.

Table II-3

Warmwater shrimp: Purchasers’ perceived degree of interchangeability of warmwater shrimp

produced in the United States and other countries

Perceived

degree of

interchangeability Brazil China Ecuador India Thailand Vietnam Nonsubject

United

States

7 always

5 frequently

4 some

0 never

6 always

2 frequently

9 some

6 never

7 always

5 frequently

6 some

4 never

4 always

1 frequently

9 some

7 never

6 always

1 frequently

9 some

8 never

4 always

1 frequently

8 some

8 never

5 always

3 frequently

6 some

4 never

Brazil

5 always

4 frequently

5 some

0 never

6 always

7 frequently

1 some

0 never

3 always

1 frequently

6 some

4 never

3 always

2 frequently

8 some

1 never

2 always

2 frequently

6 some

2 never

4 always

2 frequently

3 some

0 never

China

7 always

6 frequently

6 some

1 never

3 always

5 frequently

6 some

3 never

6 always

6 frequently

8 some

1 never

3 always

5 frequently

9 some

1 never

4 always

5 frequently

6 some

1 never

Ecuador

2 always

3 frequently

8 some

5 never

4 always

4 frequently

10 some

2 never

3 always

3 frequently

6 some

4 never

3 always

5 frequently

6 some

0 never

India

4 always

5 frequently

9 some

0 never

2 always

5 frequently

9 some

1 never

3 always

2 frequently

8 some

2 never

Thailand

6 always

7 frequently

8 some

0 never

4 always

4 frequently

8 some

1 never

Vietnam

3 always

2 frequently

7 some

2 never

Note.– “some” means “sometimes” (shortened for space reasons).

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

Processors and importers were asked to assess how often differences other than price were

significant in sales of warmwater shrimp from the United States, subject countries, or nonsubject

countries. Their answers are summarized in tables II-4 and II-5. U.S. processors were generally likely to

see few relevant differences other than price, while importers cited U.S. fishermen’s use of chemicals to
II-14

preserve caught shrimp, inconsistent quality of U.S. warmwater shrimp, lack of availability of U.S.

warmwater shrimp in sizes and forms preferred by customers, and species and size differences as

important differences other than price between U.S. and imported warmwater shrimp.

Table II-4

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales of

warmwater shrimp produced in the United States and other countries

Perceived

importance

of factors

other than

price Brazil China Ecuador India Thailand Vietnam Nonsubject

United

States

2 always

1 frequently

5 some

17 never

5 always

0 frequently

4 some

19 never

4 always

0 frequently

5 some

18 never

2 always

3 frequently

4 some

16 never

3 always

2 frequently

4 some

19 never

3 always

1 frequently

5 some

19 never

1 always

0 frequently

4 some

14 never

Brazil

3 always

0 frequently

4 some

16 never

2 always

0 frequently

5 some

16 never

2 always

1 frequently

3 some

15 never

2 always

1 frequently

4 some

16 never

2 always

0 frequently

5 some

16 never

0 always

0 frequently

4 some

14 never

China

3 always

0 frequently

5 some

16 never

2 always

0 frequently

5 some

15 never

2 always

1 frequently

5 some

18 never

2 always

1 frequently

5 some

18 never

0 always

0 frequently

4 some

14 never

Ecuador

2 always

1 frequently

3 some

16 never

2 always

1 frequently

4 some

17 never

2 always

1 frequently

4 some

17 never

0 always

0 frequently

4 some

14 never

India

2 always

1 frequently

3 some

16 never

2 always

0 frequently

3 some

16 never

0 always

0 frequently

4 some

14 never

Thailand

2 always

0 frequently

5 some

18 never

0 always

0 frequently

5 some

14 never

Vietnam

0 always

0 frequently

4 some

15 never

Note.– “some” means “sometimes” (shortened for space reasons).

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.
 40 *** submitted two questionnaires, one for ***. 

 41 The Commission received purchaser questionnaires from the following companies that also submitted

processor and/or importer questionnaires: ***.

II-15

Table II-5

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. importers’ perceived importance of factors other than price in sales of

warmwater shrimp produced in the United States and other countries

Perceived

importance

of factors

other than

price Brazil China Ecuador India Thailand Vietnam Nonsubject

United

States

11 always

6 frequently

2 some

5 never

14 always

8 frequently

6 some

5 never

12 always

8 frequently

4 some

5 never

10 always

8 frequently

5 some

7 never

15 always

8 frequently

3 some

6 never

14 always

5 frequently

3 some

7 never

7 always

6 frequently

8 some

5 never

Brazil

3 always

6 frequently

13 some

4 never

2 always

6 frequently

12 some

7 never

3 always

6 frequently

10 some

6 never

3 always

6 frequently

12 some

5 never

3 always

6 frequently

9 some

5 never

1 always

6 frequently

14 some

3 never

China

3 always

7 frequently

13 some

5 never

4 always

5 frequently

12 some

7 never

3 always

7 frequently

14 some

6 never

4 always

5 frequently

13 some

5 never

1 always

6 frequently

14 some

2 never

Ecuador

3 always

6 frequently

10 some

8 never

3 always

6 frequently

13 some

7 never

3 always

5 frequently

11 some

7 never

1 always

5 frequently

15 some

4 never

India

4 always

8 frequently

14 some

4 never

4 always

8 frequently

14 some

5 never

2 always

7 frequently

13 some

3 never

Thailand

3 always

7 frequently

16 some

5 never

2 always

6 frequently

15 some

3 never

Vietnam

1 always

5 frequently

14 some

3 never

Note.– “some” means “sometimes” (shortened for space reasons).

Source: Compiled from responses to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. Purchasers

The Commission received questionnaires from 36 purchasers40 of warmwater shrimp. Few

(approximately five) purchasers were related to importers of warmwater shrimp, and *** (other than ***)

were related to any producers (domestic or foreign) of warmwater shrimp.41

Thirty-two purchasers reported familiarity with and/or purchases of U.S. domestic warmwater

shrimp, and 28 purchasers reported familiarity with and/or purchases from warmwater shrimp from at

least three subject countries. In terms of reporting actual purchases, table II-6 presents a complete list of
 42 Specifically, one purchaser reported decreased relative purchases of Brazilian product, nine purchases reported

increased relative purchases of Chinese product, three purchasers reported decreased relative purchases of Chinese

product, four purchasers reported increased relative purchases of Ecuadorian product, six purchasers reported

decreased relative purchases of Ecuadorian product, three purchases reported increased relative purchases of Indian

product, one purchaser reported decreased relative purchases of Indian product, five purchasers reported increased

relative purchases of Thai product, three purchasers reported decreased relative purchases of Thai product, four

purchasers reported increased relative purchases of Vietnamese product, and two purchasers reported decreased

relative purchases of Vietnamese product. 

II-16

which purchasers reported purchasing from which countries. (Not all purchasers were able to report their

purchases.)

Table II-6

Warmwater shrimp: Purchasers’ reported purchases from particular national sources in 2003

and/or January-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Fourteen purchasers were distributors, six were grocery chains, three were restaurant chains, four

were breaders/marinaters/skewerers/producers of prepared meals, five were combinations of restaurants,

groceries, and/or distributors, and three were other (distributor/processor, importer and seafood market). 

Distributors tended to sell to restaurants and grocery chains. Nineteen purchasers reported that they did

not compete with their customers, although 13 (mostly distributors or breaders/marinaters/skewerers)

reported that they did at least sometimes compete with their customers. All the purchasers reported

purchasing frozen warmwater shrimp, although only six (four grocery chains and two distributors)

reported purchasing canned warmwater shrimp. 

Most purchasers reported contacting two to five suppliers when purchasing, although five

reported the range could be higher than that. (None reported usually contacting only one supplier.)

Twenty-one purchasers said that they had not changed suppliers since January 1, 2001, while 14 said that

they had, and cited lack of consistency, sales increases, price, and availability as reasons. Twenty-two

purchasers said they were not aware of any new suppliers, while 11 said that they were, with Rubicon

being cited most frequently.

Purchasers were asked if the relative shares of their purchases from different countries had

changed since January 1, 2001. Five purchasers reported increasing their relative share of purchases from

U.S. suppliers, citing work done with suppliers and purchasers to make U.S. product more acceptable,

switching U.S. suppliers, and increased demand. Three reported decreasing their relative share of

purchases from U.S. suppliers, citing low sales, small decreases due to more emphasis on cooked shrimp,

or quality problems. Twenty purchasers reported some shift in shares among their purchases of

warmwater shrimp from subject countries.42 Reasons cited were usually increased demand, quality issues,

price, or availability.

Purchasers were also asked to report their annual purchases of warmwater shrimp from each

subject country and the United States. Table II-7 summarizes their responses for two time periods, 2001-

03 and 2002-03.
 43 When asked what defines the quality of warmwater shrimp, purchasers listed many factors, including size,

flavor, color, customer acceptance, odor, texture, size conformity, appearance, count, weight, peeling workmanship,

use of chemicals, number of pieces, passing quality control, freshness, and ability to meet product specifications.

 44 When asked how often they purchase the warmwater shrimp offered to them at the lowest price, no purchasers

said always, 15 said usually, 17 said sometimes, and three said never.

II-17

Table II-7

Warmwater shrimp: Purchaser volume trends

Country

Purchase volumes

up 2001-03

(number of

purchasers)

Purchase volumes

down 2001-03

(number of

purchasers)

Purchase volumes

up 2002-03

(number of

purchasers)

Purchase volumes

down 2002-03

(number of

purchasers)

Brazil 4 2 2 3

China 13 3 12 5

Ecuador 8 8 9 8

India 8 4 6 4

Thailand 11 7 14 6

Vietnam 7 6 8 8

United States 12 10 13 12

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Available data indicate that quality, price, and availability are the most important factors that

influence purchasing decisions for warmwater shrimp.43 Purchasers were asked to list the top three

factors that they consider when choosing a supplier of warmwater shrimp. Table II-8 summarizes

responses to this question. Purchasers were also asked to describe the importance of various purchasing

factors, as summarized in table II-9. Price was an important factor for most purchasers, but sometimes

came after quality in importance.44 Summaries of purchaser comparisons of domestic, subject, and

nonsubject warmwater shrimp are presented in appendix E. 
II-18

Table II-8

Warmwater shrimp: Ranking of purchasing factors by purchasers

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Number 1 factor Number 2 factor Number 3 factor

Quality 15 12 2

Price/cost 7 11 8

Availability 5 3 6

Food safety 2 0 0

Credit extension 1 0 2

Reputation 1 0 2

Customers’ specs 1 0 0

Consistency/reliability 1 4 5

Delivery 0 1 2

Note.--Other factors mentioned include product range, service, traditional supplier, country of origin, and species. 

These answers were not included above. 

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-19

Table II-9

Warmwater shrimp: Importance of purchasing factors

Factor

Number of firms reporting

Very

important

Somewhat

important

Not

important No answer

Availability 31 4 0 0

Consistency from one shipment to another 31 3 1 0

Delivery terms 12 19 4 0

Delivery time 17 14 2 2

Discounts offered 7 15 12 1

Extension of credit 5 20 10 0

Price 27 8 0 0

Minimum quantity requirements 7 14 14 0

Packaging 13 19 3 0

Product range 7 23 4 1

Proper cutting, handling, and packing

techniques 28 6 1 0

Quality meets your firm’s standards 32 3 0 0

Quality exceeds your firm’s standards 16 15 3 1

Reliability of supply 30 5 0 0

Taste/flavor profile 27 4 3 1

Transportation network 8 16 10 1

U.S. transportation costs 9 17 8 1

Other 4 0 0 31

 1 3 = very important, 2 = somewhat important, 1 = not important.

Note.--Other factors mentioned include traceability, HACCP, aqauculture produced, and environmental

sustainability.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

When asked how often U.S.-produced warmwater shrimp meets minimum quality specifications

for their or their customers’ uses, three purchasers said always, 12 said usually (although two of these

noted the usually was for peeled shrimp and that domestic shrimp was less likely to meet specifications

for other types), nine said sometimes, and seven said rarely or never. When asked how often subject

country shrimp meets minimum quality specifications, four purchasers said always, 23 said usually, one

said sometimes, and one said rarely or never. When asked how often nonsubject country shrimp meets

minimum quality specifications, purchasers generally answered always or usually for many Central and

South American countries and for many Southeast Asian countries as well.

Purchasers were asked how often they knew the producer/processor of the warmwater shrimp that

they purchased. Nine purchasers said always, 14 said usually, 12 said sometimes, and one said never. 

Purchasers were also asked how often they and their customers were aware of the country of origin of the

warmwater shrimp that they purchase. With regards to whether they were aware if their own purchases

were U.S. warmwater shrimp or imported warmwater shrimp, 26 purchasers said always, eight said
II-20

usually, and one said never. With regards to whether their customers were aware of the country of origin

of their purchases, seven said always, 14 said usually, 13 said sometimes, and two said never.

Twenty-five purchasers reported that they required approval of suppliers for 90-100 percent of

their purchases, while three reported that they required approval of suppliers for 40-80 percent of their

purchases. Approval was usually based on quality, chemicals, USDA inspection, consistency, HAACP

approval, and size. Approving a new supplier is based on the same standards, as well as supplier

reliability and company reputation. Seven purchasers, mostly distributors, stated that they did not require

approval for their purchases.

Nineteen purchasers reported that no suppliers had failed to receive approval. However, 11

purchasers reported that U.S. suppliers had failed to receive approval, for issues such as quality,

uniformity, traceability, and supply interruptions. Three purchasers reported Chinese suppliers failing

because of quality and chemical problems. One purchaser reported failing an Ecuadorian supplier for

workmanship and sizing issues, one reported failing an Indian supplier, one reported failing

processor/importer *** because of too much use of phosphates, and one reported failing an importer. 

When asked if they ever specifically ordered warmwater shrimp from one country over others, 29

purchasers said that they did, with seven of those mentioning the United States as at least one of the

countries. The rest generally named subject countries for the availability of farm-raised product, for

specific species, and for quality or price reasons. Several purchasers mentioned purchasing black tigers

from Thailand and white shrimp from China, Ecuador, or Mexico (with five purchasers mentioning

Mexican white shrimp as a high quality product). Similarly, when purchasers were asked if certain grades

or types of warmwater shrimp are only available from a single country source, 23 said no and 11 said

yes. The 11 who said yes generally cited specific species (such as black tigers from Thailand or

freshwater prawns from Bangladesh), levels of processing (such as peeled tail-on small shrimp or cooked

16/20 not available from the United States), or levels of quality (such as black tigers from the Philippines

and large Mexican white shrimp). 

When asked why they had purchased more expensive warmwater shrimp when less expensive

warmwater shrimp was available, purchasers cited a variety of reasons including consistent and reliable

supply and quality. For example, *** said that it often pays or is willing to pay more for warmwater

shrimp from China (for quality of workmanship), Ecuador (faster lead times and quality), India

(availability of large shrimp), and Thailand (quality and reliability). *** said that it only buys from a

pool of established suppliers familiar with its specifications and standards, but that even within that pool

of suppliers it will sometimes buy higher-priced warmwater shrimp because of reliability, delivery time,

and competitive balance among suppliers. However, *** stated that it tries to buy American except when

“forced” to carry imports due to competition.

Different Forms of Warmwater Shrimp

Warmwater shrimp is available in multiple forms. It may be sold in different sizes, in species,

with different freezing techniques (IQF vs. block frozen), with different extents of peeling, and in

different forms (frozen or canned). When asked if warmwater shrimp in one form competes with

warmwater shrimp in a different form, 21 processors said yes, stating that one size of shrimp is often

substitutable for another, as are different sizes and amounts of peeling. *** stated that since shrimp is

always consumed peeled anyway, price differences can entice consumers to substitute between peeled and

headless shrimp. *** said that, due to competition from subject imports, many of its customers will still

buy peeled shrimp from it but not headless. *** stated that value-added shrimp is competing more often

with headless, shell-on shrimp. Sixteen importers also said that warmwater shrimp in one form can

compete with warmwater shrimp in a different form. *** said that retailers compete within price bands,

and therefore they purchase shrimp that fit within the band they are selling in. Other importers who said

yes described such substitution among forms of warmwater shrimp as happening more at the final
 45 See, commission visit to *** and staff interview with ***.

II-21

consumer level. Five processors and 24 importers said different forms of shrimp do not compete with

each other.

Purchasers were asked whether they usually purchase the same size and species of warmwater

shrimp for use in the same end-use application. Twenty-three purchasers said that they always or usually

did purchase the same size and species, while eight said they varied their purchases by size and species. 

Distributors were more likely to answer that they did vary the sizes and species that they purchased, while

breader/marinaters and restaurant chains preferred to purchase the same sizes in general. 

Questionnaires also asked purchasers to describe the uses and prices of warmwater shrimp across

the following divisions: IQF vs. block frozen, peeled frozen vs. shell-on headless frozen, wild-caught vs.

farm-raised, one species vs. another, and one count size vs. another. In each comparison, purchasers were

asked first whether changes in the price of one type of frozen shrimp always, usually, sometimes, or never

affected the price of another type. Then, purchasers were asked if they could or did use the different

types for the same end uses.

Purchasers often responded that prices of different types of warmwater shrimp in each category

were usually affected by the other type, but these same purchasers would also often say that they did not

typically use the different types of shrimp in the same end uses. This apparent discrepancy could be

because prices reflect the overall supply of warmwater shrimp, or because these purchasers have not felt

constrained enough to purchase other forms of warmwater shrimp recently.

IQF vs. block frozen

When asked how often changes in the price of IQF warmwater shrimp affect the price of block

frozen warmwater shrimp, one purchaser said always, 18 said usually, ten said sometimes, and one said

never. Purchasers were then asked if they could or do use IQF and block frozen warmwater shrimp for

the same end uses. Answers varied widely. *** reported that their customers could take either block

frozen or IQF. *** said they could purchase block frozen and IQF product for the same end uses, perhaps

depending on availability. *** said it could not interchange block frozen and IQF product as imported

block frozen warmwater shrimp has no chemical treatment but IQF frozen warmwater shrimp does. ***

said that they usually do not purchase IQF and block frozen product for the same end uses, and may use

each or only one for a particular purpose. For example, *** said that block frozen product typically has

less breakage than IQF product. *** said most of its sales were block frozen warmwater shrimp to

restaurants, and *** said that restaurants and hotels prefer block frozen. *** said that they could

purchase either, but typically purchase one depending on end use. *** said that they typically purchase

either block frozen or IQF depending on customer preference. *** said that IQF can be thawed faster

than block frozen product. *** said that traditionally, when the price of block frozen warmwater shrimp

increases, then the price of IQF product increases within one month. However, it explained that recently,

that increase has not been occurring as some customers require one form or the other. *** said it could

not use block frozen in retail applications, and *** said that IQF is more for grocery stores while block

frozen is for restaurants. *** said it preferred block frozen for its longer shelf life.

*** explained that block freezing keeps the shrimp colder, saves space, avoids breakage, and thus

may be preferred by some retailers. However, it said that IQF has the advantage of being separated and

can be sold in bags without additional thawing. *** added that IQF shrimp may command a slightly

higher price premium than block frozen, but that block frozen are slightly more costly to produce as a

result of higher handling costs.45
 46 In addition to importer questionnaire responses, see also, testimony of George Chamberlain, Global

Aquaculture Alliance, conference transcript, pp. 150-153.

 47 However, elsewhere (including importer questionnaire responses and testimony of George Chamberlain, Global

Aquaculture Alliance, conference transcript, pp. 151-152), some respondents have also said that their warmwater

shrimp has a superior taste.

II-22

Peeled frozen vs. shell-on headless frozen

When asked how often changes in the price of peeled frozen warmwater shrimp affect the price of

shell-on headless frozen warmwater shrimp, one purchaser said always, 11 said usually, 13 said

sometimes, and three said never. Purchasers were then asked if they could or do use peeled and shell-on

headless warmwater shrimp for the same end uses. Fourteen answered that they rarely or never used

peeled and shell-on headless for the same end uses, but seven said that they did or could. *** stated that

the interchangeability of peeled and shell-on shrimp depends on both the purchaser’s capacity to perform

value-adding processes and the price/availability of each type. *** said that there are some restaurants

that use both types. *** said that it usually can not interchange shell-on and headless, but that if peeled

shrimp is not available, it will try to use shell-on. *** said that it is not staffed to peel and thus must use

peeled, but *** said it preferred shell-on. *** said that the price of shell-on warmwater shrimp may

affect the price of peeled warmwater shrimp, but not vice versa. *** said that it does not and can not

purchase shell-on and peeled for the same end uses. *** said that some customers could peel their own

shrimp, but *** saw peeled and shell-on as more interchangeable than ***. *** said that their customers

usually order one or the other.

Wild-caught vs. farm-raised

Processors generally reported that farmed and wild-caught warmwater shrimp are fundamentally

similar, while importers were more likely to report differences. The processors who supported the

petition but also acknowledged some differences between farmed and wild-caught warmwater shrimp

often stated that consumers were not willing to pay more for such differences, or were unable to discern

such differences except in particular regions of the country. Importers, on the other hand, cited

differences in quality (some stating that wild-caught shrimp tastes better and others stating the reverse),

seasonal availability (with farmed warmwater shrimp being available in consistent sizes and quantities

year round), and price (with farmed warmwater shrimp having a more stable and lower price).46

Respondents have argued that a market niche does exist for U.S. wild-caught warmwater shrimp,

with a potential premium available for taste.47 They stated that U.S. processors have been unwilling to

adapt to changing trends in the U.S. shrimp market. Many processors reported that consumers did not

differentiate between types of shrimp, that “a shrimp is a shrimp” in consumers’ eyes, and that while U.S.

wild-caught warmwater shrimp may have a taste advantage, that advantage is not enough to make up for

the substantially lower prices of subject imports.

When asked how often wild-caught and farm-raised warmwater shrimp compete with each other,

21 processors said always, three said usually, and four said sometimes. Those processors which thought

there was some difference cited wild-caught shrimp’s superior taste, farm-raised shrimp’s uniform

appearance, and the chemical-free nature of U.S. wild-caught shrimp. However, processors who saw

more competition between wild-caught and farm-raised shrimp were more likely to say the major

difference was the much lower price and higher volume of imported farm-raised shrimp, which some

processors said they could not compete with due to much lower foreign labor costs. When asked how

often wild-caught and farm-raised warmwater shrimp compete with each other, 27 importers said

sometimes, two said usually, six said always, and seven said never (or rarely). Most importers (including

the ones who answered “sometimes”) described farmed warmwater shrimp as a higher quality product
 48 See, testimony of Richard Gollott, Treasurer, Golden Gulf and Jonathan D. Applebaum, President, Penguin

Frozen Foods, hearing transcript, pp. 177-180.

 49 See, testimony of Peter Redmond, Vice President for Deli/Seafood of Wal-Mart, hearing transcript, pp. 232-

233.

II-23

than ocean-caught warmwater shrimp in terms of uniformity of size and flavor, availability, convenience,

extent of peeling, and appearance. *** stated that some customers (especially chain restaurants) would

prefer farmed warmwater shrimp. 

When asked how often changes in the price of wild-caught warmwater shrimp affect the price of

farm-raised warmwater shrimp, three purchasers said always, ten said usually, 15 said sometimes, and

three said never. Purchasers were then asked if they could or do use wild-caught and farm-raised

warmwater shrimp for the same end uses. *** said that wild-caught and farm-raised shrimp could be

used for the same purposes only if customer specifications allowed, and added that more customers are

requesting farm-raised shrimp only. *** said that when the same quality and size shrimp can be

purchased for a competitive price, wild-caught and farm-raised are purchased interchangeably, but that

wild-caught is often more expensive and not available in the value-added forms it needs. *** said that it

could purchase either type for the same end uses, depending on which type was the better value. ***

expressed a preference for wild-caught. *** said that wild-caught and farmed have separate markets, with

*** stressing that availability, consistency, and quality considerations did not allow interchangeability of

wild-caught and farm-raised shrimp. *** said that wild-caught and farm-raised shrimp were somewhat

interchangeable, but that wild-caught tended to be more expensive due to it generally having higher count

sizes. *** said that 65-70 percent of its customer base would use either wild-caught or farm-raised

shrimp of comparable quality interchangeably, but 30-35 percent would not. *** said that wild-caught

and farm-raised shrimp can be used for the same end uses, but that wild-caught shrimp prices are affected

by farm-raised shrimp prices rather than the other way around. *** said that it could sometimes substitute

farm-raised shrimp for wild-caught shrimp, but that wild-caught had too much flavor variation to

substitute in the other direction. *** said that their customers can distinguish the flavors of wild-caught

and (milder) farm-raised shrimp and demand one or the other. *** said that there is not much quality,

chemical-free wild-caught shrimp available. *** also said that they do not buy wild-caught shrimp as

farm-raised has many advantages including consistency, size, and year round availability. ***, though,

said it would like to be able to use domestic wild-caught product. *** said that there is not enough wildcaught shrimp to meet its demand. *** stated that, at least to some extent, they could purchase wildcaught or farm-raised. *** said that it does purchase both wild-caught and farm-raised shrimp for some

uses, but that ***. *** said that wild-caught and farm-raised shrimp do not compete with each other

because the price for wild-caught is higher, and many restaurants do not want to pay the premium.

U.S. shrimp fishermen and processors are trying to develop a market for wild-caught shrimp

through the efforts of the Wild American Shrimp Committee (WASI). Processors stated that WASI is

attempting to market wild-caught shrimp as a premium product, but that full implementation is still a

ways away.48 In addition, Wal-Mart has begun selling U.S. shrimp marketed in bags marked with the

U.S. state of origin, in an attempt to sell a premium product in the way wild salmon is successfully sold at

a premium to farmed salmon.49 However, one fisherman pointed out that similar efforts have been
 50 See, testimony of Kimberley Chauvin, owner of Mariah Jade Shrimp Company, hearing transcipt, pp. 196-197.

 51 Commission visit to ***.

 52 See, testimony of Sal Versaggi, Owner, Versaggi Shrimp Company, conference transcript, p. 90.

 53 See, testimony of Wally Stevens, Slade Gorton, conference transcript, p. 146.

 54 See, testimony of Richard Gollott, Golden Gulf Coast Packing, and Andrew Blanchard, Pearl, conference

transcript, pp. 63 and 80, respectively.

II-24

 around since the 1980s, and have allegedly not slowed consumers from switching from U.S. wild-caught

shrimp to imported farmed shrimp.50

***.51

Species

Processors and importers mentioned some consumer preferences for particular species, but

processors stressed that this variation was usually regional and not enough to command a large price

premium.52 Importer Slade Gorton stated that regional consumer preferences for particular species had

existed 20 years ago, and also stated that with proper marketing U.S. wild-caught shrimp could command

a premium.53 Some domestic processors stated that they do separate white and brown warmwater shrimp

for headless sales but not otherwise.54

When asked how often changes in the price of one species of warmwater shrimp affect the price

of another species of warmwater shrimp, two purchasers said always, 11 said usually, 19 said sometimes,

and two said never. Purchasers were then asked if they could or do use different species of warmwater

shrimp for the same end uses. *** said it could only if allowed by customer specification. *** said that

black tiger shrimp could be substituted for white shrimp. *** said that black tiger shrimp are considered

unique and have a different flavor from white shrimp. *** said it could purchase different species for

some end uses if the price of one species made it a better value. *** said that it could switch between

farm-raised white shrimp and farm-raised black tiger shrimp. *** said that its customers (distributors)

tend to sell multiple species of shrimp to end users who often use different species (depending on price)

for the same end use. *** said that buyers try to compare prices between species, but that different

species have different customers. *** said that it only buys one species. *** said that different species

can be substituted, but still have different characteristics. 

Size

When asked how often changes in the price of one size of warmwater shrimp affect the price of

another size of warmwater shrimp, two purchasers said always, 12 said usually, and 20 said sometimes. 

Purchasers were then asked if they could or do use different sizes of warmwater shrimp for the same end

uses. *** said it could not because using different sizes would affect the number of pieces per serving. 

*** said that they or other purchasers can and do use different sizes of warmwater shrimp, especially if

the sizes are close and the prices are different. *** said that changing counts would affect the visual

presentation of the product. *** said they do not usually use different sizes, but can. *** said that

restaurants can usually change sizes depending on availability. *** said that they typically purchase the

same specified size of warmwater shrimp. *** said that while other purchasers may make changes in the

sizes they order, it does not as that would force menu changes, which are expensive. *** said that while

it purchases many sizes of warmwater shrimp, its customers typically demand only one. *** said that it

usually purchased the same sizes but that different sizes could be used for special promotions. *** said

that some customers may switch sizes when price differentials are larger than normal.
 55 See, testimony of Bill Herzig, Vice President for Seafood Purchasing, Darden Restaurants, hearing transcript,

pp. 227 and 307.

 56 U.S. canner Bumble Bee processes fresh shrimp the same day it receives it. See, testimony of David Cook,

Vice President for Specialty Seafood Trade, Bumble Bee, hearing transcript, p. 89.

 57 See, testimony of Kevin Dempsey, Dewey Ballantine, and Kevin McClain, Chicken of the Sea, conference

transcript, pp. 16 and 226, respectively.

 58 The prehearing report estimated the elasticity of U.S. supply to be in the range of 4 to 8. Dr. Chad Bown,

economist for respondents, argued that U.S. supply was more inelastic, based on the landings of fresh shrimp. See

testimony of Dr. Chad Bown, hearing transcript, pp. 252-253. Staff has reconsidered its earlier estimate to give

more weight to the ceiling on potential U.S. production due to the limited supply of fresh shrimp. However, staff

notes that its U.S. supply elasticity estimate is for frozen or canned warmwater shrimp, not fresh shrimp. While the

level of fresh shrimp caught could limit the amount of shrimp available to be processed, data in these investigations

(continued...)

II-25

At the hearing, Darden stated that consistent count size is crucial in maintaining Red Lobster as a

trusted brand, and that it cannot obtain consistently sized warmwater shrimp from domestic suppliers.55

Frozen vs. canned

Canned warmwater shrimp is generally cooked while frozen warmwater shrimp usually is not.56

In addition, canned warmwater shrimp is usually smaller sized shrimp, while frozen warmwater shrimp

exists in a wider range of sizes and species. However, processors often stated that consumers did not

draw huge distinctions between canned and frozen warmwater shrimp, and noted that canned and frozen

warmwater shrimp can be used in some of the same recipes. Processors and respondents disagreed about

how easy it would be to switch production from frozen to canned warmwater shrimp.57

When asked how often changes in the price of frozen warmwater shrimp affect the price of

canned warmwater shrimp, two purchasers said usually, eight said sometimes, and six said never. (Many

purchasers expressed no knowledge of canned warmwater shrimp.) Purchasers were then asked if they

could or do use frozen or canned warmwater shrimp for the same end uses. *** said that canned shrimp

could be substituted for smaller frozen shrimp in some applications. *** said that frozen shrimp could

have the same end uses as canned shrimp depending on consumer. *** said that frozen and canned

warmwater shrimp could not be substitutes as quality and sizes would vary. 

Overall, six purchasers (***) reported buying both canned and frozen warmwater shrimp. All the

other purchasers reported buying only frozen, not canned, warmwater shrimp.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES

Elasticity estimates are discussed below; parties were encouraged to comment on these estimates

in their prehearing briefs. 

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for warmwater shrimp depends on factors such as the level of

excess capacity, the ability to shift production to alternate products, and the availability of alternate

markets. Processors have rising inventories and low capacity utilization, but limited alternative

production possibilities, an upward ceiling on raw materials, and no major exports. Analysis of these

factors indicates that the domestic producers of warmwater shrimp have some ability to alter domestic

shipments in response to a change in the relative price of warmwater shrimp. An estimate in the range of

3 to 6 is suggested.58
 58 (...continued)

indicate that U.S. processors do have excess capacity and relatively high levels of inventories which they could use

to increase shipments of canned and frozen shrimp to the U.S. market. (For example, inventories have risen

substantially since 2001, indicating that U.S. processors could increase shipments to the U.S. market.) Staff also

notes that wild catch landings for the first six months of 2004 were over 15 percent lower than the same period of

2003 (see table IV-4). Since some fishermen indicated that they harvested less because the price of shrimp was

lower (see, for example, transcript of the hearing at 62), this implies that the level of fresh shrimp is not totally fixed

and supply is not totally price inelastic. 

 59 Dr. Bown presented an econometric model to estimate the elasticity of substitution using pricing data from

responses to Commission questionnaires. He estimated a lower elasticity of substitution (relative to that suggested

by staff). While Dr. Bown's methodology is rigorous, there are data limitations in using the questionnaire data

because of the relatively small number of observations. Dr. Bown also points to purchaser questionnaire responses

where price is downplayed in purchasing decisions (see, prehearing brief of ASDA, exhibit 10). While staff

acknowledges that purchasers of the subject warmwater shrimp often pointed to non-price factors as important, it is

also important to note that there is also information from purchasers which indicates that price is important. For

example, 27 purchasers reported price as a "very important" factor in their purchasing decisions and many

purchasers stated that domestic and imported shrimp are interchangeable at least frequently. Based on all of the

available information, staff believes that there is at least a moderate degree of substitutability between domestic and

imported shrimp, most likely in the range of 2 to 5. 

Dr. Bown also submitted an economic analysis using a Kelly model in which he determined that most of the

decrease in production of frozen and canned warmwater shrimp is due to the decrease in demand for domestic

product. Staff notes that the results of this model will depend heavily on the inputs used, and in particular, the

elasticities used.

II-26

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. demand elasticity for warmwater shrimp depends on the availability of substitute

products as well as the share of warmwater shrimp in the production cost of downstream products. While

there are few exact substitutes for warmwater shrimp, purchasers can use other proteins in their sales of

finished food products to consumers, and high current levels of demand for shrimp seem to be based on

lower-than-historical prices. Based on the available information, the aggregate demand for warmwater

shrimp is likely to be moderately elastic. An estimate in the range of -1 to -3 is suggested.

Substitution Elasticity

The elasticity of substitution depends on the extent of product differentiation between the

domestic and imported products. Product differentiation depends on factors such as the range of products

produced, quality, availability, and the reliability of supply. Based on available information, subject

warmwater shrimp are substitutable for domestic warmwater shrimp in many end uses; nonetheless there

are significant distinctions between U.S. and subject warmwater shrimp, and U.S. shrimp can not supply

the current level of U.S. demand. Based on these factors, staff estimates the substitution elasticity

between domestic warmwater shrimp and those imported from subject countries to be in the range of 2 to

5.59
 1

 On August 28, 2004, counsel for the Louisiana Shrimp Association submitted 1,028 letters from fishermen in

support of the petition, and an additional 2,500 letters from fishermen have been received directly by the

Commission.

 2

 The number of fishermen returning questionnaires may have been impacted by the severe 2004 hurricane

season.

III-1

PART III: U.S. PRODUCERS’ PRODUCTION,

SHIPMENTS, AND EMPLOYMENT

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making injury determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §§

1677(7)(B) and 1677(7)(C)). Information on the final margins of dumping was presented Part I of this

report and information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented in

Parts IV and V. Information on the other factors specified is presented in this section and/or Part VI.

U.S. PRODUCTION AND PRODUCERS

Warmwater shrimp is wild-caught in the United States in the Gulf of Mexico and the

Southeastern Atlantic. Farm production is also largely concentrated in the same states. Table III-1

presents warmwater shrimp landings and farm production, by state, in 2003.

The Commission sent fishermen questionnaires to 190 firms identified in the petition as domestic

shrimp fishermen. One hundred forty firms provided responses to the Commission’s fishermen

questionnaire.1

 One hundred thirty firms provided usable data and are believed to have accounted for

approximately 6.5 percent of U.S. wild-caught landings of shrimp during 2003.2

 Data for the U.S.

fishermen and a list of U.S. fishermen that responded to the Commission’s fishermen questionnaire are

presented in appendix F.

Table III-1

Warmwater shrimp: Wild-catch landings and farm production, by state, 2003

State

Wild-Catch Landings 

(thousands of pounds live weight)

Farm Production

(thousands of pounds live weight)

Louisiana 125,602 --

Texas 79,169 8,900

Florida 24,250 2,000

Mississippi 16,490 --

Alabama 15,770 40

North Carolina 6,167 --

South Carolina 6,551 1,000

Georgia 5,495 --

Hawaii -- 1,000

Arizona -- 400

Arkansas -- 40

Source: Official statistics of the National Marine Fisheries Service and estimates of the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program.
 3

 ***. 

 4 See “Views of the Commission” in Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from Brazil,

China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam, Investigations Nos. 731-TA-1063-1068 (Preliminary), Publication

3672, February 2004, pp. 17-18.

 5

 Ibid., pp. 18-19.

III-2

The Commission sent processor questionnaires to 125 firms identified in the petition as domestic

processors of shrimp. Thirty-nine firms responded to the Commission’s processor questionnaire, of

which 37 provided usable data.3

 In 2003, these firms accounted for approximately *** percent of U.S.

production of shrimp based on live (head-on shell-on) weight, or *** percent of U.S. production of

shrimp based on headless shell-on weight. Presented in table III-2 is a list of the U.S. shrimp processors

that responded to the Commission’s processor questionnaire. Also presented is information concerning

each company’s position on the petition, production locations, annual average number of days the firm

operated, toll agreements since January 1, 2001, share of commercial shipments of domestically harvested

shrimp that were wild-caught and farm-produced, and their share of reported 2003 domestic production of

shrimp. 

Presented in table III-3 are reported changes in processors’ operations since January 1, 2001. 

Table III-4 presents information from *** U.S. processors that reported production of other products on

equipment and machinery used in the production of warmwater shrimp, shares of warmwater shrimp

production on the same equipment, production of other products using the same production and related

workers employed to produce warmwater shrimp, and shares of warmwater shrimp production using the

same workers. These firms accounted for only *** percent of production in 2003. The vast majority of

domestic production is accounted for by companies that produce warmwater shrimp with dedicated

equipment and workers. 

In the preliminary phase of the investigations, counsel for the petitioner raised the issue that

appropriate circumstances exist to exclude several related parties from the domestic industry. The

Commission found that two firms, ***, do not engage in sufficient production-related activities to be

considered domestic producers.4

 The Commission also found that two other firms, ***, should be

excluded from the domestic industry as related parties.5

 The data for these four firms are presented

separately in the report and are collectively referred to as the “previously excluded parties.” 

Also in the preliminary phase of the investigations, three firms which petitioner sought to exclude

from the domestic industry, ***, were unable to break out their substantial production of breaded shrimp

from production of subject shrimp and, therefore, their questionnaire data were not used in the

preliminary phase report. In these final phase investigations, *** have provided the Commission with

questionnaire responses that contain data for subject product only. Petitioner continues to seek to exclude

these firms from the domestic industry in the final phase. The data for *** are presented separately in the

report and are collectively referred to as the “targeted related parties.”
III-3

Table III-2

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors, their positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, annual average number of

days the firms operated, toll agreements, shares of commercial shipments of domestically harvested warmwater shrimp,

and shares of reported 2003 production

Firm Position

Production

location (s)

Annual

average

number of

days firm

operated

Toll

agreements

since 

January 1,

2001

Share of 2003

commercial

shipments of

domestically

harvested of

warmwater

shrimp (percent) Share of

2003

reported

production

Farmed (percent)

Wild

caught

Bama Sea Products Support Florida *** *** *** *** ***

Bon Secour Support Alabama *** *** *** *** ***

Bumble Bee Seafoods Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Carson & Co. Support Alabama *** *** *** *** ***

C.F. Gollot & Son Seafood Support Mississippi *** *** *** *** ***

Custom Pack Support Mississippi *** *** *** *** ***

David Gollot Seafood Support Mississippi *** *** *** *** ***

Deep Sea Foods Support Alabama *** *** *** *** ***

Fisherman’s Reef Shrimp Support Texas *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Golden Gulf Coast Support Mississippi *** *** *** *** ***

Gollott Brothers Seafood Support Mississippi *** *** *** *** ***

Gulf Crown Seafood Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Gulf Fish Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Gulf Island Shrimp Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Gulf Shrimp Support Florida *** *** *** *** ***

Hi-Seas of Dulac Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

JBS Packing Support Texas *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Louisiana Shrimp &

Packing Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Ocean Select Seafood Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on following page.
III-4

Table III-2--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors, their positions on the petition, U.S. production locations, annual average number

of days the firms operated, toll agreements, shares of commercial shipments of domestically harvested warmwater

shrimp, and shares of reported 2003 production

Firm Position

Production

location(s)

Annual

average

number of

days firm

operated

Toll

production

since 

January 1,

2001

Share of 2003

commercial

shipments of

domestically

harvested of

warmwater

shrimp (percent) Share of

2003

reported

production

Farmed (percent)

Wild

caught

Ocean Springs Seafood

Marketing Support Mississippi *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Paul Piazza Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Pearl/Indian Ridge Shrimp Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Port Royal Seafood Support South Carolina *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Sea Pearl Seafood Support Alabama *** *** *** *** ***

Seabrook Seafood Support Texas *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

*** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Tidelands Seafood Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Triple T Enterprises Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

True World Foods Support Alabama *** *** *** *** ***

Vincent Piazza Support Louisiana *** *** *** *** ***

Weems Brothers Seafood Support Mississippi *** *** *** *** ***

 Total 100.0

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table III-3

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors and changes in operations since January 1, 2001

* * * * * * *
 6

 “Total” data discussed in Part III cover all processors, including previously excluded parties and targeted related

parties. 

 7

 ***.

 8

 ***.

 9

 ***.

III-5

Table III-4

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. producers, production of other products on equipment and machinery

used in the production of warmwater shrimp, shares of warmwater shrimp production on the same

equipment, production of other products using the same production and related workers

employed to produce warmwater shrimp, and shares of warmwater shrimp production using the

same workers, 2003 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PROCESSORS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

Data on U.S. processors’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented in table III5. Total U.S. capacity increased *** percent from 2001 to 2003, and in January-June 2004 was ***

percent above January-June 2003.6

 Total U.S. production of warmwater shrimp decreased by *** percent

from 2001 to 2003, and dropped by *** percent in January-June 2004 compared with January-June 2003. 

Capacity utilization decreased by *** percentage points from 2001 to 2003, and declined by ***

percentage points in January-June 2004 compared with January-June 2003. U.S. producers reported the

following constraints on their production: lack of sales, low production of domestic wild caught shrimp,

fewer boats working, unable to obtain raw material, sales and available markets, credit lines from banks

for inventory, labor shortage in 2003, drop in dock side price, customer demand for quality and cost

effective shrimp, regulated seasons, no turnover of inventory, falling prices throughout whole season,

packaging equipment capabilities, freezing capacity, record high fuel prices, and available hours in the

day.

Table III-5

Warmwater shrimp: Reported U.S. production capacity, production, and capacity utilization, 2001-

03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PROCESSORS’ U.S. SHIPMENTS AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

Data on domestic producers’ shipments of warmwater shrimp are presented in table III-6. U.S.

shipments decreased by *** percent from 2001 to 2003, and further decreased by *** percent in JanuaryJune 2004 compared with January-June 2003. The value of U.S. shipments decreased by *** percent

from 2001 to 2003, and further decreased by *** percent in January-June 2004 compared with JanuaryJune 2003. The unit value of U.S. shipments decreased by *** percent from 2001 to 2003, and further

decreased by *** percent in January-June 2004 compared with January-June 2003. Two U.S. processors

reported internal consumption.7

 Four U.S. processors reported transfers to related firms.8 Seven U.S.

processors reported export shipments, ***.9

 
 10 ***.

 11 ***.

 12 ***. 

III-6

Table III-6

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ shipments, by type, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and

January-June 2004 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PROCESSORS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES OF IMPORTS

Nine U.S. processors, ***, reported that they imported shrimp.10 11 Table III-7 presents those

U.S. processors’ direct imports and purchases of warmwater shrimp from subject sources.12

Table III-7

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ imports and purchases from subject countries, 2001-03,

January-June 2003, and January-June 2004 

* * * * * * *

U.S. PROCESSORS’ INVENTORIES

Data on U.S. processors’ end-of-period inventories of warmwater shrimp for the period examined

are presented in table III-8. U.S. processors’ inventories increased *** percent from 2001 to 2003, and

further increased *** percent in January-June 2004 compared with January-June 2003.

Table III-8

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ end-of-period inventories, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and

January-June 2004 

* * * * * * *

U.S. EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. processors on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of warmwater shrimp, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages paid

to such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in these investigations are presented in

table III-9.

Table III-9

Warmwater shrimp: Average number of production and related workers producing warmwater

shrimp, hours worked, wages paid to such employees, and hourly wages, productivity, and unit

labor costs, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *
 1

 The Commission sent questionnaires to those firms identified in the petition, firms identified by the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (“Customs”) as possible importers, and firms identified in the foreign producer

questionnaires.

 2

 Imports of warmwater shrimp are from official statistics under HTS statistical reporting numbers 0306.13.0003,

0306.13.0006, 0306.13.0009, 0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015, 0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021, 0306.13.0024,

0306.13.0027, 0306.13.0040, 1605.20.1010, 1605.20.1030, and 1605.20.1040. Imports from Canada, Chile,

Denmark, Greenland, and Iceland are considered to be coldwater shrimp and therefore are not included. 

 3

 ZG, ***, was determined by Commerce to have a de minimis margin of 0.07 percent. 69 FR 71003, December

8, 2004. In all tables dealing with imports, ZG’s imports are identified as “China nonsubject.”

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS, APPARENT CONSUMPTION, AND

MARKET SHARES

U.S. IMPORTERS

The Commission sent importer questionnaires to 75 firms believed to be importers of warmwater

shrimp, as well as to all U.S. producers.1

 Questionnaire responses were received from 47 companies that

in 2003 are believed to account for 67.8 percent of U.S. imports from Brazil, 62.4 percent from China,

60.0 percent from Ecuador, 51.4 percent from India, 73.7 percent from Thailand, and 68.4 percent from

Vietnam. The largest responding importers of warmwater shrimp are ***. A list of U.S. importers of

warmwater shrimp, the countries they import from, and their shares of reported 2003 imports are

presented in table IV-1. 

Table IV-1

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. importers, countries they import from, and shares of 2003 imports

* * * * * * *

U.S. IMPORTS

U.S. imports of warmwater shrimp are presented in table IV-2.2

 Thailand is the largest exporter

of subject warmwater shrimp to the United States, accounting for 26.4 percent of total imports in 2003,

followed by China (15.9 percent),3

 Vietnam (11.7 percent), India (9.3 percent), Ecuador (6.9 percent), and

Brazil (4.5 percent).

 

NEGLIGIBILITY

The Tariff Act provides for the termination of an investigation if imports of the subject product

from a country are less than 3 percent of total imports, or, if there is more than one such country, their

combined share is less than or equal to 7 percent of total imports, during the most recent 12 months for

which data are available preceding the filing of the petition–in this case December 2002 to November 

2003. The shares (in percent) of the total quantity of U.S. imports for each of the subject countries for the

period of December 2002 to November 2003 are shown in table IV-3.
IV-2

Table IV-2

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports (ZG imports presented as China nonsubject), by sources, 2001-03, JanuaryJune 2003, and January-June 2004

Source

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Brazil 21,638 39,074 48,023 30,245 14,143

China *** *** *** *** ***

Ecuador 56,585 63,351 73,112 43,856 45,272

India 71,794 96,654 99,180 41,812 40,486

Thailand 296,422 247,651 281,011 103,681 129,823

Vietnam 72,818 96,996 124,503 47,017 44,548

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 273,533 258,802 270,888 107,741 143,630

 Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total 852,677 908,482 1,066,168 409,368 474,670

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Brazil 67,115 93,061 103,100 65,977 29,292

China *** *** *** *** ***

Ecuador 222,543 200,371 214,873 131,559 119,927

India 266,916 367,436 412,087 173,804 155,433

Thailand 1,288,839 988,432 996,171 385,787 376,144

Vietnam 389,556 487,952 602,915 238,406 221,936

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 1,200,942 975,411 977,973 384,979 455,388

 Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total 3,623,717 3,407,963 3,744,881 1,471,239 1,493,784

Unit value (per pound)

1

Brazil $3.10 $2.38 $2.15 $2.18 $2.07

China *** *** *** *** ***

Ecuador 3.93 3.16 2.94 3.00 2.65

India 3.72 3.80 4.15 4.16 3.84

Thailand 4.35 3.99 3.54 3.72 2.90

Vietnam 5.35 5.03 4.84 5.07 4.98

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 4.39 3.77 3.61 3.57 3.17

 Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Average 4.25 3.75 3.51 3.59 3.15

Table continued on next page.
IV-3

Table IV-2--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports (ZG imports presented as China nonsubject), by sources, 2001-03,

January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

Source

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Share of quantity (percent)

Brazil 2.5 4.3 4.5 7.4 3.0

China *** *** *** *** ***

Ecuador 6.6 7.0 6.9 10.7 9.5

India 8.4 10.6 9.3 10.2 8.5

Thailand 34.8 27.3 26.4 25.3 27.4

Vietnam 8.5 10.7 11.7 11.5 9.4

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 32.1 28.5 25.4 26.3 30.3

 Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Brazil 1.9 2.7 2.8 4.5 2.0

China *** *** *** *** ***

Ecuador 6.1 5.9 5.7 8.9 8.0

India 7.4 10.8 11.0 11.8 10.4

Thailand 35.6 29.0 26.6 26.2 25.2

Vietnam 10.8 14.3 16.1 16.2 14.9

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Other sources 33.1 28.6 26.1 26.2 30.5

 Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1

 Landed, duty-paid.

2

 Less than 0.05 percent.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and questionnaire of ZG.
 4

 U.S. production is based on wild catch landings and farmed production. Wild catch landings is based on official

statistics of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Farmed production is based on estimates by the U.S. Marine

Shrimp Farming Program.

IV-4

Table IV-3

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports and shares of total imports, by source, December 2002-November 2003

Country Imports

(1,000 pounds)

Share of total imports

(percent)

Brazil 48,589 4.6

China 165,603 15.6

Ecuador 72,164 6.8

India 98,324 9.2

Thailand 279,343 26.3

Vietnam 125,426 11.8

 Subtotal 789,448 74.2

All other countries1 273,878 25.8

 Total 1,063,326 100.0

1 Imports from Canada, Chile, Denmark, Greenland, and Iceland excluded.

Note.–Because imports from ZG are included, imports from China are overstated. ***.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce Statistics.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

Data on U.S. consumption of warmwater shrimp are presented in table IV-4.4

 The quantity of U.S.

consumption increased by 20.4 percent from 2001 to 2003 and increased by 14.0 percent in January-June

2004 compared with January-June 2003. The value of U.S. consumption decreased irregularly by 2.3

percent from 2001 to 2003 and was essentially unchanged in January-June 2004 compared with January-June

2003. 

U.S. MARKET SHARES

Market shares for warmwater shrimp are presented in table IV-5. The quantity and value of the

U.S. producers’ market share decreased steadily during the period examined. 
IV-5

Table IV-4

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, by sources, and U.S. consumption, 2001-

03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Wild catch landings 279,225 255,894 276,926 102,039 85,796

Farmed production 10,000 12,300 13,200 6,600 5,500

 Domestic production 289,225 268,194 290,126 108,639 91,296

 Converted domestic production 181,923 168,694 182,489 68,334 57,425

Exports1 27,983 30,628 37,039 22,036 12,843

 U.S. shipments 153,940 138,066 145,450 46,298 44,582

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil 21,638 39,074 48,023 30,245 14,143

 China *** *** *** *** ***

 Ecuador 56,585 63,351 73,112 43,856 45,272

 India 71,794 96,654 99,180 41,812 40,486

 Thailand 296,422 247,651 281,011 103,681 129,823

 Vietnam 72,818 96,996 124,503 47,017 44,548

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries 273,533 258,802 270,888 107,741 143,630

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

All countries 852,677 908,482 1,066,168 409,368 474,670

Total U.S. consumption 1,006,617 1,046,548 1,211,618 455,666 519,252

Table continued on next page.
IV-6

Table IV-4--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. imports, by sources, and U.S. consumption, 2001-

03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. shipments2 906,707 662,717 679,252 226,397 203,742

U.S. imports3

 from--

 Brazil 67,115 93,061 103,100 65,977 29,292

 China *** *** *** *** ***

 Ecuador 222,543 200,371 214,873 131,559 119,927

 India 266,916 367,436 412,087 173,804 155,433

 Thailand 1,288,839 988,432 996,171 385,787 376,144

 Vietnam 389,556 487,952 602,915 238,406 221,936

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

 China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries 1,200,942 975,411 977,973 384,979 455,388

Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

All countries 3,623,717 3,407,963 3,744,881 1,471,239 1,493,784

Total U.S. consumption 4,530,424 4,070,680 4,424,133 1,697,636 1,697,526

1

 Exports include the following HTS numbers: 0306.13.0003, 0306.13.0006, 0306.13.0009, 0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015,

0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021, 0306.13.0024, 0306.13.0027, 0306.13.0040, 1605.20.1010, 1605.20.1025, and 1605.20.1040. 2

 The value of U.S. shipments has been estimated by using an average wholesale price for headless shell-on shrimp. 3

 Landed, duty-paid.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Wild catch landings and farmed production are presented in

pounds of live (head-on shell-on) weight. With respect to interim wild catch data, National Marine Fisheries Service makes revisions

each month in order to publish the best available data. Such revisions usually result in an upward adjustment to the amount of the

catch; hence, the January-June 2004 data, in the end, may be understated. U.S. production has been converted to pounds of

headless shell-on weight. Import and export quantities are in actual reported official statistics and have not been converted to

headless shell-on equivalent weight, therefore imports may be slightly overstated relative to U.S. shipments. Additionally, to the

extent official statistics contain any imports of “dusted” or “battered” shrimp (which Commerce excluded from the scope of

investigations in its final determinations), imports may be slightly overstated. Imports from Canada, Chile, Denmark, Greenland, and

Iceland are considered to be of coldwater shrimp and therefore are excluded from the import data.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics; Wild catch landings – 2001 - 2003: National Marine Fisheries Service

“Fisheries of the United States” (annual yearbook, various issues) statistics, January-June 2003 and January-June 2004: compiled

from monthly landings data retrieved from: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/monthly_landings.html, and U.S. Marine

Shrimp Farming Program statistics (email from Tony Ostrowski, Director, U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program, dated November 2,

2004. 
IV-7

Table IV-5

Warmwater shrimp: Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. consumption 1,006,617 1,046,548 1,211,618 455,666 519,252

Value (1,000 dollars)

U.S. consumption 4,530,424 4,070,680 4,424,133 1,697,636 1,697,526

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. shipments 15.3 13.2 12.0 10.2 8.6

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil 2.1 3.7 4.0 6.6 2.7

 China *** *** *** *** ***

 Ecuador 5.6 6.1 6.0 9.6 8.7

 India 7.1 9.2 8.2 9.2 7.8

 Thailand 29.4 23.7 23.2 22.8 25.0

 Vietnam 7.2 9.3 10.3 10.3 8.6

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

 China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject countries 27.2 24.7 22.4 23.6 27.7

 Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

All countries 84.7 86.8 88.0 89.8 91.4

Share of value (percent)

U.S. shipments 20.0 16.3 15.4 13.3 12.0

U.S. imports from--

 Brazil 1.5 2.3 2.3 3.9 1.7

 China *** *** *** *** ***

 Ecuador 4.9 4.9 4. 7.7 7.1

 India 5.9 9.0 9.3 10.2 9.2

 Thailand 28.4 24.3 22.5 22.7 22.2

 Vietnam 8.6 12.0 13.6 14.0 13.1

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

 China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

 Nonsubject countries 26.5 24.0 22.1 22.7 26.8

 Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

All countries 80.0 83.7 84.6 86.7 88.0

 1 Less than 0.05 percent.

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Import quantities are in actual reported official statistics and have not been converted to headless

shell-on equivalent weights, therefore import penetration may be slightly overstated. Additionally, to the extent official statistics contain any imports of “dusted” or “battered”

shrimp (which Commerce excluded from the scope of investigations in its final determinations), import penetration may be slightly overstated. Imports from Canada, Chile,

Denmark, Greenland, and Iceland are considered to be of coldwater shrimp and therefore are excluded from the import data.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics; Wild catch landings – 2001 - 2003: National Marine Fisheries Service “Fisheries of the United States” (annual

yearbook, various issues) statistics, January-June 2003 and January-June 2004: compiled from monthly landings data retrieved from:

http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/monthly_landings.html, and U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program statistics (email from Tony Ostrowski, Director, U.S.

Marine Shrimp Farming Program, dated November 2, 2004.
IV-8

RATIO OF SUBJECT IMPORTS TO U.S. PRODUCTION

Information concerning the ratio of subject imports to U.S. production of warmwater shrimp is

presented in table IV-6. Imports from subject countries were equivalent to 316.2 percent of U.S.

production during 2001. This level increased to 468.6 percent during 2003 and to 485.2 percent during

January-June 2004.

Table IV-6

Warmwater shrimp: Ratio of U.S. imports to U.S. production, by sources, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and

January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Ratio of U.S. imports to converted domestic production (percent)

Brazil 11.8 22.8 28.6 44.4 20.9

China *** *** *** *** ***

Ecuador 30.9 36.9 43.6 64.4 66.9

India 39.2 56.4 59.1 61.4 59.8

Thailand 161.9 144.4 167.6 152.3 191.8

Vietnam 39.8 56.6 74.2 69.1 65.8

 Subtotal (subject) *** *** *** *** ***

China nonsubject *** *** *** *** ***

Nonsubject countries 149.4 150.9 161.5 158.3 212.2

 Subtotal (nonsubject) *** *** *** *** ***

 All countries 465.8 529.8 635.7 601.4 701.2

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics, National Marine Fisheries statistics, and U.S. Marine Shrimp

Farm Program statistics.
 5

 69 FR 42669, July 16, 2004 and 69 FR 71001, December 8, 2004. Allied and Yelin were mandatory

respondents. Section A respondents are those firms that submitted voluntary Section A questionnaires during the

course of Commerce’s investigation. Commerce found that critical circumstances do not exist for two of the

mandatory respondents, Red Garden and ZG.

 6

 In making its determination, Commerce noted: “In this case, the volume of imports of certain frozen and canned

warmwater shrimp from the PRC increased 51.57 percent from the critical circumstances base period (December

2002 through August 2003) to the critical circumstances comparison period (September 2003 through May 2004).” 

69 FR 42670, July 16, 2004. In its final determination, Commerce simply affirmed its earlier finding. 

69 FR 71001, December 8, 2004. Although Red Garden’s final LTFV margin was above 25 percent, Commerce

made no comment in this regard. Red Garden’s preliminary LTFV margin was 7.67 percent.

 7

 For a complete listing of the Section A respondents see table I-2. 

IV-9

CRITICAL CIRCUMSTANCES

On May 19, 2004, petitioners alleged that there was a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that

critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of warmwater shrimp from China. With respect to

China, Commerce, in its final determination, found that critical circumstances exist for two of the

mandatory respondent exporters, Section A respondents, and exporters receiving the PRC-wide rate.5

 

Commerce determines that critical circumstances exist if there is a reasonable basis to believe or

suspect that: (1) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the

United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise; or (2) the person by whom, or for whose account,

the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject

merchandise at less than fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales;

and (3) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.

With respect to the first criterion, Commerce was not aware of any antidumping order in any

country on warmwater shrimp from China. With regard to the second criterion, Commerce normally

considers margins of 25 percent or more for export price (EP) sales or 15 percent or more for constructed

export price (CEP) transactions sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping. In this instance, because the

dumping margins of Yelin and Allied, and the Section A respondents, are greater than 25 percent for EP

and 15 percent for CEP, Commerce found there is a reasonable basis to impute to importers knowledge of

dumping with respect to all imports from China.6

 In determining whether there are “massive imports”

over a relatively short period, Commerce based its analysis on a comparison of each respondent’s export

volume for the months December 2002 through August 2003 to volume during the months September

2003 through May 2004. For all other exporters (Section A and PRC-wide), Commerce performed the

analysis using import statistics.

As noted, Commerce determined that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports from

mandatory respondents Allied and Yelin, Section A respondents (Asian Seafood et al),7

 and exporters

receiving the PRC-wide rate. Monthly exports to the United States by Allied and Yelin and total monthly

imports into the United States from China (from official Commerce import statistics, less monthly exports

from Allied, Yelin, Red Garden, and ZG) are shown in table IV-7 (from December 2002 through June

2004).

Table IV-7

Warmwater shrimp: Exports from China to the United States by specific exporters and total China imports,

monthly, December 2002-May 2004

* * * * * * *
IV-10

CUMULATION CONSIDERATIONS

In assessing whether imports compete with each other and with the domestic like product, the

Commission has generally considered four factors: (1) the degree of fungibility, including specific

customer requirements and other quality related questions; (2) presence of sales or offers to sell in the

same geographical markets; (3) common channels of distribution; and (4) simultaneous presence in the

market. Degree of fungibility and channels of distribution are discussed in Parts I and II of this report;

geographical markets and presence in the market are discussed below.

Geographical Markets

Warmwater shrimp products produced in the United States are shipped nationwide. While

imports of warmwater shrimp from the subject countries may enter specific Customs districts, the product

is then generally sold nationwide. Table IV-8, based on Commerce statistics for the period 

2001-03, presents U.S. import quantities of warmwater shrimp, by the subject countries, according to the

Customs districts through which they entered.

Simultaneous Presence in the Market

Warmwater shrimp produced in the United States was present in the market throughout the period

for which data were collected. Table IV-9 presents monthly U.S. imports of warmwater shrimp during

calendar year 2003 and January-June 2004. Based on official U.S. import statistics, there were U.S.

imports of warmwater shrimp from each of the subject countries in each month during January 2003-June

2004. 
IV-11

Table IV-8

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports, by subject countries and by customs districts, 2001-03

Customs district

Brazil China1 Ecuador

2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Baltimore, MD 64 0 47 419 270 357 1,015 50 195

Boston, MA 0 0 127 778 857 2,253 323 572 795

Buffalo, NY 0 26 31 47 61 297 2 113 127

Charleston, SC 17 0 137 42 0 119 25 60 0

Chicago, IL 0 0 0 244 121 504 0 0 36

Cleveland, OH 0 0 0 32 192 335 0 0 78

Columbia-Snake, OR 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 0 0

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 0 0 0 0 0 382 0 0 0

Detroit, MI 0 38 17 17 124 297 12 214 128

Great Falls, MT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Honolulu, HI 000000000

Houston-Galveston, TX 0 0 259 1,251 1,697 2,809 1,844 1,743 2,580

Laredo, TX 12 0 0 29 9 37 23 35 0

Los Angeles, CA 3,835 6,524 5,943 51,526 89,529 128,335 17,031 20,507 22,324

Miami, FL 958 2,326 3,225 1,051 2,621 4,931 19,222 19,538 19,724

Mobile, AL 0 0 0 36 44 0 0 0 0

New Orleans, LA 88 0 0 288 75 198 50 41 0

New York, NY 16,433 29,928 38,035 2,174 6,586 16,963 16,579 19,182 23,863

Norfolk, VA 0 175 42 86 0 4,669 0 0 426

Ogdensburg, NY 000030000

Pembina, ND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Philadelphia, PA 151 0 0 32 44 33000

Portland, ME 000000000

San Diego, CA 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 190 137

San Francisco, CA 0 0 0 261 435 855 90 74 0

San Juan, PR 0 0 0 507 821 944000

Savannah, GA 0 0 0 110 32 82 45 27 30

Seattle, WA 35 0 5 489 176 258 16 0 0

St. Albans, VT 4300000000

Tampa, FL 0 56 155 467 2,255 4,730 309 1,006 2,669

Virgin Islands of the U.S. 000000000

Total 21,638 39,074 48,023 59,887 105,954 169,452 56,585 63,351 73,112

Table continued on next page.
IV-12

Table IV-8--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports, by subject countries and by customs districts, 2001-03

Customs district

India Thailand Vietnam

2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003 2001 2002 2003

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Baltimore, MD 13 80 55 243 295 124 0 36 0

Boston, MA 144 71 523 8,642 5,147 7,355 1,981 4,122 6,955

Buffalo, NY 46 46 23 219 145 202 27 12 0

Charleston, SC 36 70 60 0 450 0 0 0 0

Chicago, IL 0 0 36 1,358 1,351 2,672 71 44 33

Cleveland, OH 883 1,105 1,515 8,912 5,375 1,509 206 738 586

Columbia-Snake, OR 0 0 0 83 16 0 0 0 0

Dallas-Fort Worth, TX 0 0 0 132 0 893 0 0 255

Detroit, MI 40 50 8 595 530 40 23 104 7

Great Falls, MT 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0

Honolulu, HI 247 503 538 164 119 181000

Houston-Galveston, TX 0 0 256 1,216 796 1,730 150 30 43

Laredo, TX 5 0 36100000

Los Angeles, CA 51,559 62,266 50,603 200,843 173,118 192,856 50,440 60,925 79,592

Miami, FL 1,290 1,943 1,634 10,447 8,772 16,259 4,550 3,941 4,833

Mobile, AL 0 0 0 0 97 0 0 0 0

New Orleans, LA 35 33 71 131 0 0 145 399 364

New York, NY 14,910 25,701 36,046 40,847 38,752 39,528 12,738 23,437 27,107

Norfolk, VA 126 846 2,959 2,102 1,280 5,248 1,222 1,381 1,424

Ogdensburg, NY 25 24 0 960 304 40007

Pembina, ND 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0

Philadelphia, PA 0 0 36 295 1,460 172 0 0 64

Portland, ME 0 0 0 2800000

San Diego, CA 000000000

San Francisco, CA 0 0 36 306 115 218 97 482 604

San Juan, PR 72 71 281 85 142 141 0 0 51

Savannah, GA 12 302 37 0 235 0 0 0 15

Seattle, WA 0 46 213 540 340 515 54 357 242

St. Albans, VT 0 0 0 24 4 5 11 0 0

Tampa, FL 2,352 3,496 4,214 18,141 8,808 11,322 1,105 988 2,321

Virgin Islands of the U.S. 000100000

Total 71,794 96,654 99,180 296,422 247,651 281,011 72,818 96,996 124,503

 1

 Because imports from ZG are included, imports from China are overstated.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
IV-13

Table IV-9

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. imports, by source and month, January 2003-June 2004

Month Brazil China Ecuador India Thailand Vietnam Subtotal

All other

sources Total

 Quantity (1,000 pounds)

January 2003 3,440 10,693 5,314 9,641 13,675 9,461 52,224 20,211 72,435

February 2003 4,491 5,923 5,983 7,857 15,658 6,780 46,691 18,061 64,752

March 2003 5,303 2,932 6,289 7,057 17,941 5,697 45,219 16,622 61,840

April 2003 6,051 3,817 6,675 6,386 20,103 6,586 49,619 15,633 65,252

May 2003 6,105 4,016 9,814 5,039 16,441 7,406 48,821 17,000 65,820

June 2003 4,856 7,634 9,783 5,831 19,863 11,087 59,055 20,214 79,269

July 2003 4,095 21,012 6,493 8,265 21,140 13,391 74,397 28,193 102,590

August 2003 3,624 23,849 4,994 10,838 25,296 13,527 82,129 27,454 109,584

September 2003 4,058 22,481 4,629 12,048 30,410 14,072 87,697 25,702 113,399

October 2003 2,818 23,975 3,974 9,973 36,716 15,266 92,722 32,772 125,494

November 2003 1,397 23,939 3,182 7,732 36,543 11,834 84,627 25,960 110,587

December 2003 1,786 19,180 5,983 8,513 27,224 9,396 72,081 23,066 95,147

January 2004 1,476 19,538 6,458 10,000 23,761 9,132 70,366 21,550 91,916

February 2004 2,487 21,403 8,133 14,734 48,898 13,159 108,814 21,309 130,123

March 2004 2,646 11,550 9,960 8,653 32,224 7,452 72,485 21,536 94,022

April 2004 4,347 2,238 9,474 1,964 9,559 2,758 30,340 25,874 56,214

May 2004 1,812 841 5,524 2,099 6,768 4,724 21,767 25,430 47,197

June 2004 1,375 1,198 5,723 3,036 8,613 7,323 27,269 27,930 55,198

Note–.Because imports from ZG are included, imports from China are overstated.

Source: Compiled from official statistics of the Department of Commerce.

 1

 These estimates are derived from official import data and represent the transportation and other charges on

imports valued on a c.i.f. basis, as compared with customs value for August 2003 through July 2004.

 2

 Several firms submitted both processor and importer questionnaires. In the interest of not counting companies

twice, they were assigned either to “processor” or “importer” for the purposes of this chapter. *** were categorized

as processors while *** were categorized as importers.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICES

Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

Transportation costs for warmwater shrimp from subject countries to the United States (excluding

U.S. inland costs) are estimated to be approximately 6.7 percent of the total cost for warmwater shrimp

from Brazil, 4.6 percent of the total cost for warmwater shrimp from China, 4.7 percent of the total cost

for warmwater shrimp from Ecuador, 3.7 percent of the total cost for warmwater shrimp from India, 4.9

percent of the total cost for warmwater shrimp from Thailand, and 2.6 percent of the total cost for

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam.1

 

U.S. Inland Transportation Costs

Twenty-eight processors and 31 importers2

 reported that their firms usually arrange

transportation, with only one processor and eight importers reporting that their purchasers arrange

transportation. Both processors and importers generally estimated transportation costs in the range of 2 to

8 percent. However, two processors explained that transportation costs are often priced per pound.

Exchange Rates

Quarterly data reported by the International Monetary Fund indicate that, over January 2001

through June 2004, the nominal value of the Brazilian real depreciated at first, and then appreciated. 

Nominal values for the Chinese, Ecuadorian, Indian, Thai, and Vietnamese currencies were mostly

fluctuating within a narrow range or rising. Both nominal and real values of the currencies are presented

in figure V-1.
V-2

B ra z il

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan.-Mar. 2001 = 100

N om inal Real

C h in a

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan.-Mar. 2001 = 100

N om inal

Figure V-1

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the Brazilian, Chinese,

Ecuadorian, Indian, Thai, and Vietnamese currencies and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

Figure continued on next page.
V-3

Ecuador

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

140

2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan.-Mar. 2001 = 100

N om inal Real

In d ia

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan.-Mar. 2001 = 100

N om inal Real

Figure V-1--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the Brazilian, Chinese,

Ecuadorian, Indian, Thai, and Vietnamese currencies and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

Figure continued on next page.
V-4

T h a ila n d

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan.-Mar. 2001 = 100

N om inal Real

V ie tn a m

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004

Jan.-Mar. 2001 = 100

N om inal

Figure V-1--Continued

Exchange rates: Indices of the nominal and real exchange rates between the Brazilian, Chinese,

Ecuadorian, Indian, Thai, and Vietnamese currencies and the U.S. dollar, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, August 2004 and June 2003.
 3

 Two of these importers said that these provisions were FDA/Customs release.

V-5

PRICING PRACTICES

Pricing Methods

Warmwater shrimp are usually sold in the spot market (though a significant short-term contract

market exists) with prices subject to frequent (usually weekly) changes according to market conditions

(which are often generally known among market participants). Processors reported a variety of pricing

methods, including price lists, standard mark-ups over cost, and transaction-by-transaction negotiation. 

Ten processors reported using their own price list, with an additional two reporting that they consulted

Urner Barry (an industry price report). However, many processors who reported using price lists often

reported that the price list was a basis for negotiation rather than a fixed list. Price lists may be issued as

frequently as once per week, and may contain different prices for different sizes of shrimp, as well as

information about species, freezing method (block or IQF), availability, and extent of peeling. Among

importers, 10 reported using price lists, with an additional 10 reporting that they consulted industry

publications (such as Urner Barry) or other importers’ price lists. The other importers reported using

transaction-by-transaction negotiation or responding to the market situation. However, as with the

processors, even importers who reported using a price list often reported that the price list was a basis for

negotiation rather than a fixed list.

Twenty-four processors reported that 90 percent or more of their sales were spot sales. One more

reported 65 percent spot sales, with two reporting that 90 percent or more of their sales were on shortterm (one year or less) contracts. *** stated that it could not compete with imports on contracts. Among

importers, 18 reported that 90 percent of their sales were spot sales, and an additional six reported that 50

percent to 90 percent of their sales were spot sales. Thirteen more importers reported that a majority of

their sales were short-term contracts, while one reported half spot sales and half short-term contracts. ***

reported that 70 percent of its sales were long-term contracts; three other importers reported some longterm contracts but for no more than 10 percent of their sales. 

For short-term contracts, seven processors and 25 importers reported that contracts usually fix

both price and quantity, although two importers and two processors stated that contracts may fix only

price or quantity. Short-term contracts were generally described as two to six months, although both

importers and processors mentioned some nine-, 10-, and 12-month contracts. Five processors and 11

importers reported that contracts might be renegotiated at least occasionally, but four processors and 20

importers said that contracts were not renegotiated. In addition, one processor and five importers said that

their contracts contained meet or release provisions,3

 while eight processors and 25 importers said their

contracts did not. For long-term contracts, three importers reported that contracts fix both price and

quantity. Long-term contracts were described as one to two years by four importers (no processors

reported long-term contracts).

Eight processors and seven importers reported offering volume discounts. Processors also

reported discounts for cash payment and because of import price pressure. Some importers also reported

case-by-case discounts, but overall, 12 processors and 29 importers reported offering no discounts or

limited discounts.

When asked to identify price leaders in the warmwater shrimp market, ten purchasers said there

were none, with *** describing the shrimp market as “competitive” and “diverse” enough that no single

firm could affect price. Sixteen purchasers did list at least one company as a price leader. Ocean Garden

was cited as a leader for Mexican shrimp, Red Chamber was cited as a leader for Chinese shrimp, and

Penguin was cited as a leader for U.S. shrimp. Other companies cited as price leaders by more than one

purchaser include Mazzetta, McMarine, Rubicon, and Expack. Price leaders lead by being the first to

move prices up or down. 
 4

 See, testimony of George Chamberlain, Global Aquaculture Alliance, hearing transcript, pp. 285-292.

V-6

The Global Aquaculture Alliance (GAA) described U.S. warmwater shrimp prices as having

fallen in the 1980s as global supplies of farmed shrimp rose, then stabilizing or rising when farmed

shrimp ran into difficulty with disease, and then perhaps falling again as the international farmed shrimp

industry recovered and reduced its costs.4

PRICE DATA

The Commission requested U.S. processors and importers of warmwater shrimp to provide

quarterly data for the total quantity and value of warmwater shrimp that were shipped to unrelated

customers in the U.S. market. Data were requested for the period January 2001-June 2004. The products

for which pricing data were requested are as follows:

Product 1: Frozen warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 71 to 90 count, raw, headless,

peeled (whether or not deveined), tail-off, block frozen (cut or not cut) 

Product 2: Frozen warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 41 to 50 count, raw, P&D

(peeled and deveined), tail-off, IQF (cut or not cut) 

Product 3: Frozen warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 26 to 30 count, raw, P&D

(peeled and deveined), tail-on, block frozen (cut or not cut) 

Product 4: Frozen, cooked warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 51 to 60 finished

count, headless, shell-on, IQF

Product 5: Frozen, cooked warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 26 to 30 finished

count, P&D (peeled and deveined), tail-on, IQF

Product 6: Frozen warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 61 to 70 count, raw, headless,

shell-on, block frozen

Product 7: Frozen warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 31 to 40 count, raw, headless,

shell-on, block frozen

Product 8: Frozen warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 26 to 30 count, raw, headless,

shell-on, block frozen

Product 9: Frozen warmwater shrimp or prawns, all species, 10 to 15 count, raw, headless,

shell-on, block frozen

Product 10: Canned shrimp, tiny size, all species, count 90-220 per can
 5

 Importers *** could not completely separate their pricing data into individual subject countries of origin. Thus,

their data is included in the “all subject” portions of the pricing tables and charts but not in the individual country

charts. ***.

 6

 Staff made numerous changes to the submitted pricing data, including dropping any quarter of data with a price

less than $0.50 per pound or more than $20.00 per pound. Staff attempted to contact purchasers whose pricing data

fell outside these ranges. Other changes have come since the prehearing report, including dropping ***. The largest

change to the price data used in the prehearing report is the exclusion of processor data submitted by ***. *** were

not used as ***. *** were not used as *** did not submit usable trade data and was thus not included in the

domestic industry database. Importer pricing data from *** were used. *** were also not used because *** has

been targeted for exclusion from the domestic industry by petitioners. If any of the firms excluded by staff are

included by the Commission, staff can revise its pricing database. The exclusion of these processors has caused

some substantial changes in the pricing data for products 2, 3, 4, and 5.

 7

 The pricing data includes data submitted by ***, one of the importers that imported from Chinese producer ZG,

found by Commerce to have a de minimis LTFV margin. It is unknown if pricing data from *** include data

fromZG.

V-7

Twenty-seven U.S. processors and 33 importers5

 provided usable pricing data for sales of the

requested products, although not all firms reported pricing for all products for all quarters.6

 Pricing data

reported by these firms accounted for approximately 16.4 percent of U.S. processors’ reported shipments

of warmwater shrimp, 12.8 percent of imports from Brazil, 6.8 percent of imports from China,7

 8.1

percent of imports from Ecuador, 5.2 percent of imports from India, 5.6 percent of imports from Thailand,

and 9.5 percent of imports from Vietnam in 2003.

Price Comparisons

Tables G-1 to G-10 and figures G-1 to G-20 summarize the pricing data. Some importers could

not completely separate their data by subject country of origin, and so their data are presented with all

countries together in these tables. Finally, U.S. processor data are compared to all import data in

appendix G.

Most pricing products show substantial price declines over the period April-June 2001 through

April-June 2004, as shown in table V-1. (This second quarter to second quarter analysis was performed

in all the discussions below to minimize any seasonal effect while using the most recent data available.) 

Import volumes over the period January 2001 to April 2004 generally rose, but there are numerous

instances of overselling, as shown in table V-2. Ranges of underselling and overselling are presented in

table V-3.

U.S. prices showed a price decline in seven of the ten products over the period April-June 2001 to

April-June 2004, with not enough data in the other three products to make a comparison. Import prices

also showed a general decline from April-June 2001 to April-June 2004. Generally, import volumes rose

over the period April-June 2001 to April-June 2004. 

There are two points to note in examining these pricing data. First, some processors and

importers were unable to provide data for the full period, meaning that conclusions about pricing volumes

over the period may be somewhat muted or exaggerated (to an unknown extent). Second, volumes vary

widely from one quarter and product to another, meaning that an unweighted comparison of occurrences

of margins of underselling or overselling may not reflect how important a particular product is to the

overall U.S. warmwater shrimp market. 
V-8

Table V-1

Warmwater shrimp: Price declines from April-June 2001 through April-June 2004, by country and

pricing product

Product

United

States Brazil China Ecuador India Thailand Vietnam All subject

Percent decline

1 33.4 12.8 24.3 40.0 -- 24.6 -- 34.1

2 30.7 -- 39.9 24.1 18.3 36.4 30.8 30.2

3 9.2 -- -- -- -- 21.2 21.4 22.9

4 -- -- -- -- -- 46.6 -- 45.3

5 -- -- -- 36.1 27.0 19.8 -16.3 11.0

6 17.9 31.4 21.2 40.4 26.7 21.2 24.6 34.0

7 30.9 52.0 39.4 44.9 31.2 36.7 21.4 36.4

8 36.6 49.5 23.9 46.9 18.0 28.7 17.7 26.2

9 39.7 34.2 -- 31.4 14.3 13.8 21.4 23.5

10 -- -- 37.6 -- -- 11.7 -- 17.4

Note.– A negative number indicates a price increase.

Source: Tables G-1 through G-10.

Table V-2

Warmwater shrimp: Instances of underselling/overselling in Commission pricing data, by country and

pricing product

Product

Brazil China Ecuador India Thailand Vietnam Total All subject

Number of quarters of underselling (overselling)

1 4 (9) 5 (9) 0 (14) 0 (6) 6 (8) 2 (10) 17 (56) 3 (11)

2 0 (6) 6 (8) 0 (14) 0 (14) 2 (12) 3 (11) 11 (65) 2 (12)

3 -- 8 (4) 2 (1) 6 (3) 9 (5) 9 (5) 34 (18) 10 (4)

4 -- 6 (0) -- 3 (2) 6 (0) 3 (1) 18 (3) 6 (0)

5 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

6 12 (2) 14 (0) 13 (1) 14 (0) 14 (0) 12 (0) 79 (3) 12 (2)

7 9 (5) 14 (0) 10 (4) 12 (2) 10 (4) 10 (4) 65 (19) 13 (1)

8 4 (10) 13 (1) 6 (8) 10 (4) 11 (3) 9 (5) 53 (31) 11 (3)

9 4 (9) 2 (0) 2 (12) 10 (4) 11 (3) 12 (2) 41 (30) 8 (6)

10 -- 0 (10) -- -- 9 (0) 5 (1) 14 (11) 4 (6)

Total 33 (41) 68 (32) 33 (54) 55 (35) 78 (35) 65 (39) 332 (236) 69 (45)

Source: Tables G-1 through G-10.
V-9

Table V-3

Warmwater shrimp: Ranges of underselling/overselling in Commission pricing data, by country

and pricing product

Product

Brazil China Ecuador India Thailand Vietnam Total All subject

Minimum percent underselling (overselling)

Maximum percent underselling (overselling)

1 (33.8)

18.0

(19.4)

19.5

(72.5)

(6.6)

(33.2)

(1.4)

(15.8)

13.5

(19.9)

6.8

(72.5)

19.5

(19.3)

11.1

2 (171.5)

(31.5)

(30.7)

36.4

(52.3)

(11.3)

(48.8)

(3.7)

(36.4)

17.8

(37.1)

4.5

(171.5)

36.4

(23.6)

15.9

3

--

(32.6)

55.9

(37.8)

12.3

(51.5)

36.4

(25.4)

83.8

(27.4)

28.8

(51.5)

83.8

(27.3)

37.8

4

--

15.9

37.8 --

(18.4)

29.5

4.2

35.9

(7.5)

28.1

(18.4)

37.8

8.9

36.9

5

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

6 (17.5)

26.0

1.5

29.7

(3.4)

30.0

3.9

25.0

0.6

23.4

5.3

34.3

(17.5)

34.3

(6.3)

27.3

7 (9.9)

29.2

5.1

29.6

(9.6)

16.8

(7.6)

16.1

(6.9)

19.8

(6.0)

15.4

(9.9)

29.6

(3.8)

17.7

8 (21.8)

18.2

(0.7)

28.2

(16.6)

11.0

(8.8)

22.6

(12.5)

20.0

(9.1)

22.2

(21.8)

28.2

(6.9)

17.7

9 (34.0)

25.9

5.5

16.8

(29.8)

10.7

(12.9)

27.5

(15.2)

22.0

(6.2)

18.5

(34.0)

27.5

(8.6)

19.8

10

--

(86.1)

(3.4) -- --

7.3

19.4

(9.4)

9.2

(86.1)

19.4

(9.9)

7.1

Total (171.5)

29.2

(86.1)

55.9

(72.5)

30.0

(51.5)

36.4

(36.4)

83.8

(37.1)

28.8

(171.5)

83.8

(27.3)

37.8

Note.– A negative number indicates overselling.

Source: Tables G-1 through G-10.

Purchasers’ Reported Average Unit Value Trends

Purchasers were also asked to report their annual purchases of warmwater shrimp from each

subject country and the United States. From this question, purchasers’ average unit values for annual

purchases of warmwater shrimp could also be calculated and compared, as shown in table V-4. These

average unit values, unlike the pricing data, do not reflect differences in product mix (e.g., size and extent

of processing).
 8 See petition volume II, pp. 28-29 and footnote 75 and responses to Commission questionnaires.

V-10

Table V-4

Warmwater shrimp: Trends in purchasers’ reported average unit values

Country

Average unit values

up 2001-03

(number of

purchasers)

Average unit values

down 2001-03

(number of

purchasers)

Average unit values

up 2002-03

(number of

purchasers)

Average unit values

down 2002-03

(number of

purchasers)

Brazil 1 3 0 4

China 4 10 3 11

Ecuador 0 11 1 12

India 3 7 6 4

Thailand 2 15 7 11

Vietnam 2 9 7 7

United States 2 15 4 16

Source: Compiled from information submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

LOST SALES AND LOST REVENUES

The Commission requested U.S. processors of warmwater shrimp to report any instances of lost

sales or revenues they experienced due to competition from imports of warmwater shrimp from subject

countries since January 1, 2001. Most processors (including petitioners) reported that they could not

provide any because sales negotiations are usually conducted by telephone and the competitors are not

usually known.8

 One processor, ***, provided information about lost sales. ***.

*** also provided some incomplete information, and said that most of its customers will still buy

peeled shrimp from it but not headless. *** added that the only way it can sell headless shrimp is to

lower prices below import prices, which usually means pricing lower than its own cost. It estimated that

90 percent of its customers are using imported warmwater shrimp.
 1

 The producers and their fiscal year ends are as follows: March 31– ***.

 2

 ***.

 3

 ***.

 4

 See appendix I, table I-8.

 5

 See appendix I, table I-7.

VI-1

PART VI: FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF U.S. PRODUCERS

BACKGROUND

Thirty-six domestic firms1

 provided useable financial results of their toll and non-toll operations

processing frozen and canned warmwater shrimp. These firms are believed to account for the vast

majority of the domestic industry’s processing volume during 2003. While five firms2

 reported internal

transfers of processed shrimp and two firms3

 reported internal consumption, the quantity and value of

these affiliated party transactions were generally small, accounting for less than *** percent of total sales

(quantity and value) from 2001 through June 2004. Accordingly, the data are not being presented

separately.

Three producers – *** – exited the shrimp processing industry during the period examined. ***. 

Differences between the data in this posthearing report and the data in the prehearing report are due to (1)

the receipt of *** questionnaire response, (2) data changes submitted by ***, and (3) changes to *** and

*** data as a result of verification (see verification reports for details).

OPERATIONS OF U.S. WARMWATER SHRIMP PROCESSORS

In addition to the non-toll processing operations of domestic processors (whereby the processor

buys shrimp, processes it, and then sells it to other unrelated parties), there is a considerable amount of

toll processing done by the domestic industry. Toll processing occurs when the firm that owns the shrimp

(the tollee) arranges for an unrelated processor (the toller) to process the shrimp for a fee, and then the

tollee arranges for the final sale of the finished product to another party. Some processors are both nontoll processors and toll processors. The differences between the two types of processors become evident

when the financial results of the two types of processors are reviewed. Using 2003 data as an example,

the sales revenue reported by non-toll processors is $3.40 per pound, while the costs include the cost of

the purchased shrimp ($2.58 per pound), the costs of processing ($0.52 per pound), and selling and

administrative costs ($0.28 per pound).4

 These are in contrast to the financial results reported by toll

processors, where the revenues are the processing fees *** while the costs are processing costs *** and

SG&A expenses ***.5

Based upon questionnaire responses, toll processing accounted for a steadily decreasing portion

of the total amount of shrimp processed. Toll processing accounted for approximately 27 percent of the

total quantity of shrimp processed in 2001, 24 percent in 2002, 19 percent in 2003, and 10 percent during

the first half of 2004. The interim period percentage is most likely skewed downwards because *** of its

total production the second half the year. The tabulation below presents the quantity of shrimp that were

toll processed in 2003.

* * * * * * *

Aggregate income-and-loss data for processors (except previously excluded and targeted related

parties) on their operations processing shrimp (both non-toll and toll) are presented in table VI-1. In
VI-2

Table VI-1

Warmwater shrimp: Results of processors (except previously excluded and targeted related

parties) on their processing operations, fiscal years 2001-03, January-June 2003, and JanuaryJune 2004

* * * * * * *

sum, the financial results of these processors deteriorated from 2001 to 2003. Sales quantities, sales

values, and operating profits all decreased (sales quantities and operating profits irregularly), and the

number of firms reporting operating losses increased from 10 to 16. The key factor in this decline was the

decrease in unit revenues relative to the decrease in unit costs. The January to June 2004 financial results

were mixed when compared to the January to June 2003 results. Sales quantities and values both

declined measurably, yet operating profits increased, whether measured on an absolute, per-unit, or

percentage of sales basis. Also, the number of firms reporting operating losses was halved, from 18 to 9. 

As with the full-year data, the key was the decrease in unit revenues relative to the decrease in unit costs,

except that in the interim periods unit costs declined faster than unit revenues.

Aggregate income-and-loss data for the processors (previously excluded) on their operations

processing shrimp are presented in table VI-2, and aggregate income-and-loss data for the processors

(targeted related parties) on their operations processing shrimp are presented in table VI-3.

Table VI-2

Warmwater shrimp: Results of processors (previously excluded) on their processing operations,1

fiscal years 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table VI-3

Warmwater shrimp: Results of processors (targeted related parties) on their processing

operations, fiscal years 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Aggregate income-and-loss data for all domestic processors on their operations processing shrimp

are presented in table VI-4. This table is a combination of the data in tables VI-1 through VI-3. Also,

selected financial data (data on a company-by-company basis, data on toll operations, and data on non-toll

operations) are presented in appendix I.

Table VI-4

Warmwater shrimp: Results of all domestic processors on their processing operations,1

 fiscal

years 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *

The variance analysis showing the effects of prices and volume on the non-targeted processors’

non-toll processing operations, and of costs and volume on their total cost, is shown in table VI-5. The

analysis confirms that from 2001 to 2003 profitability decreased as the per-unit revenues (price variance)

declined faster than the per-unit operating costs (net cost/expense variance). From January to June 2003

to January to June 2004, the opposite was true, as profitability increased because per-unit revenues (price

variance) decreased less than the per-unit operating costs (net cost/expense variance).
VI-3

Table VI-5

Warmwater shrimp: Variance analysis of processors (except previously excluded and targeted

related parties) on their processing operations between fiscal years 2001-03 and January-June

2003-04

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL AND INVESTMENT

The Commission requested U.S. processors to describe any actual negative effects on their return

on investment, or their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing development and production

efforts, or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of certain frozen or canned warmwater 

shrimp and prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam. Their comments are

presented in appendix H.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES

Domestic shrimp processors’ capital expenditures and research and development (R&D) expenses

are presented in table VI-6. Capital expenditures were *** in the latter periods. ***.

Aggregate R&D expenses for 2001 to 2003 were largely attributable to *** reported very large

R&D expenditures in 2004. 

Table VI-6

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ capital expenditures and research and development

expenses, fiscal years 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *

ASSETS AND RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Data on domestic shrimp processors’ assets and their return on investment (defined as operating

income divided by total assets) are presented in table VI-7. The value of the non-targeted processors’

total assets declined slightly from 2001 to 2003 while the values for the previously excluded and the

targeted related processors ***.

Table VI-7

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. processors’ value of assets and return on investment, fiscal years 

2001-03

* * * * * * *

 1

 More Indian producers/exporters reported using wild-caught inputs than producers/exporters from any of the

other subject countries; nevertheless, the majority of Indian exports came from the farmed product (particularly for

those companies shipping to the United States). 

 2

 In 2003, Vietnam had the largest home market (share of shipments) at 13.8 percent; followed by Ecuador, 3.3

percent; Brazil, 3.2 percent; China, 2.6 percent; Thailand, 1.4 percent; and India, 0.6 percent. 

 3

 Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, and other Pacific Rim countries were other frequently cited markets.

 4

 At the conference in the preliminary phase of the investigations, petitioner suggested that increased testing in

the EU and Japan for unacceptable antibiotics (i.e., chloramphenicol) and the EU’s revocation of the tariff preference

that Thailand’s shrimp products had enjoyed under the EU GSP would lead to more subject product being shipped to

the United States (none of the other subject countries lost their EU GSP tariff treatment concerning shrimp). See,

testimony of Kevin Dempsey, Dewey Ballantine, Sal Versaggi, Owner, Versaggi Shrimp Company, and Richard

Gollott, Golden Gulf Coast Packing, conference transcript, pp. 89-98. 

The respondents, as a group, denied petitioner’s allegations. They note that the use of chloramphenicol that

led to the increased testing was a mistaken and no longer used option in response to white spot disease and state that

EU and Japanese testing is not an impediment to subject countries increasing their exports to the EU and Japan. See,

testimony of George Chamberlain, GAA; Warren Connelly, Akin Gump; Jose Cyriac, Marine Products Export

Development Authority of India; Matthew Nicely, Wilkie Farr; Kenneth Pierce, Wilkie Farr, conference transcript,

pp. 220-224. Thailand’s loss of GSP status was unconnected to food safety issues. Staff interview with Kenneth

Pierce, Wilkie Farr, February 4, 2004. According to respondents, the “EU is likely to restore Thailand’s GSP status,

which it removed in 1999, in mid-2005. Restoration will help make the EU a more attractive market to Thai

exporters, who were by far the largest exporters to the U.S. during the POI.” ASDA posthearing brief, app. A, in

response to a question from Vice-Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, p. A-57.

The range of tariffs presently applicable in the EU are: 4.2 to 7.0 percent for Brazil, China, India, and

Vietnam; 0.0 to 3.6 percent for Ecuador; and 12.0 to 20.0 percent for Thailand. Japanese tariff rates range from 1.0 

to 5.3 percent for each the subject countries. Petitioner’s postconference brief, p. A-35. 

VII-1

PART VII: THREAT CONSIDERATIONS

The Commission analyzes a number of factors in making threat determinations (see 19 U.S.C. §

1677(7)(F)(i)). Information on the volume and pricing of imports of the subject merchandise is presented

in Parts IV and V; and information on the effects of imports of the subject merchandise on U.S.

producers’ existing development and production efforts is presented in Part VI. Information on

inventories of the subject merchandise; foreign producers’ operations, including the potential for

“product-shifting;” any other threat indicators, if applicable; and any dumping in third-country markets,

follows.

Generally speaking, common to the six subject countries, the vast majority of the imported frozen

or canned warmwater shrimp came from farmed, rather than wild-caught, inputs;1

 there were very limited

home markets;2

 and the most important export markets were the United States, the EU, and Japan.3 4

THE INDUSTRY IN BRAZIL

Table VII-1 presents data provided by Brazilian producers/exporters through their counsel with

respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in Brazil. Thirteen firms provided useable data. The

exports to the United States of these firms were equivalent to 46.7 percent of subject U.S. imports from

Brazil in 2003.
VII-2

Table VII-1

Warmwater shrimp: Brazilian production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-03,

January-June 2003, January-June 2004, and projected 2004-05

Item

Actual experience Projections

2001 2002 2003

January-June

2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity 26,213 34,874 58,080 27,447 29,875 60,459 62,140

Production 24,080 42,591 63,569 30,114 32,998 66,888 72,230

End of period inventories 707 2,364 2,672 6,800 3,403 2,339 1,441

Shipments:

Internal consumption 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Home market 1,941 2,209 2,237 1,279 1,123 2,503 2,841

Exports to--

The United States 10,044 18,072 23,431 14,946 8,566 16,076 16,987

All other markets 12,110 22,394 44,271 15,076 25,547 48,099 52,675

Total exports 22,154 40,466 67,702 30,022 34,113 64,175 69,663

Total shipments 24,095 42,675 69,939 31,301 35,236 66,679 72,504

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 62.2 73.7 71.8 73.8 75.7 72.7 73.8

Inventories to production 2.9 5.6 4.2 11.3 5.2 3.5 2.0

Inventories to total

shipments 2.9 5.5 3.8 10.9 4.8 3.5 2.0

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Home market 8.1 5.2 3.2 4.1 3.2 3.8 3.9

Exports to--

The United States 41.7 42.3 33.5 47.7 24.3 24.1 23.4

All other markets 50.3 52.5 63.3 48.2 72.5 72.1 72.7

Total exports 91.9 94.8 96.8 95.9 96.8 96.2 96.1

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Capacity utilization figures are calculated from firms

providing both capacity and production data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 5

 ***. 

 6

 None of the Chinese firms provided data with regard to canned shrimp operations.

 7

 In addition to the useable questionnaires, counsel for SEAI submitted certifications indicating no production or

exportation from 81 additional Indian firms. 

VII-3

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

Table VII-2 presents data provided by Chinese producers/exporters through their counsel with

respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in China.5

 Twenty-eight firms provided useable data. 

Together, their exports to the United States were equivalent to 54.9 percent of subject U.S. imports from

China in 2003.6

 One-half of the responding Chinese firms began their warmwater shrimp operations

during the period examined – five in 2002, seven in 2003, and two in 2004.

Table VII-2

Warmwater shrimp: Chinese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-03, JanuaryJune 2003, January-June 2004, and projected 2004-05

* * * * * * *

THE INDUSTRY IN ECUADOR

Table VII-3 presents data provided by Ecuadorian producers/exporters through their counsel with

respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in Ecuador. Nine firms, all of which exported to the United

States, provided useable data. The exports to the United States of these firms were equivalent to 58.4

percent of subject U.S. imports from Ecuador in 2003. 

THE INDUSTRY IN INDIA

Table VII-4 presents data provided by Indian producers/exporters through their counsel or directly

with respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in India. Ninety-six firms, 83 of which exported to the

United States, provided useable data.7

 The shipments of these firms to the United States were equivalent

to 81.7 percent of subject U.S. imports from India in 2003. Two Indian respondents provided data with

respect to their canned shrimp operations. Such data are presented in appendix D. Information provided

by the Indian respondents shows that *** percent of the Indian exports to the United States were canned

product in 2003.

THE INDUSTRY IN THAILAND

Table VII-5 presents data provided by Thai producer/exporters through their counsel or directly

with respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in Thailand. Thirty-seven firms, all of which exported

to the United States, provided useable data. Together, their exports to the United States were equivalent

to 95.4 percent of subject U.S. imports from Thailand in 2003. Three Thai respondents provided data

with respect to their canned shrimp operations. Such data are presented in appendix D. Information

provided by the Thai respondents shows that 0.1 percent of the Thai exports to the United States were

canned product in 2003.
VII-4

Table VII-3

Warmwater shrimp: Ecuadoran production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-03,

January-June 2003, January-June 2004, and projected 2004-05

Item

Actual experience Projections

2001 2002 2003

January-June

2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity 156,116 156,116 156,116 78,058 78,058 157,116 159,116

Production 60,636 73,490 89,156 42,708 53,996 106,283 115,523

End of period inventories 2,201 2,380 4,266 3,985 3,874 4,680 4,906

Shipments:

Internal consumption 660 1,315 1,400 930 1,123 1,614 2,056

Home market 2,010 4,130 2,921 1,507 1,832 3,092 2,840

Exports to--

The United States 30,981 39,317 42,679 25,157 25,707 43,289 45,096

All other markets 28,353 28,543 40,267 13,509 25,428 57,583 65,310

Total exports 59,335 67,859 82,946 38,666 51,135 100,871 110,406

Total shipments 62,005 73,304 87,266 41,103 54,090 105,577 115,303

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 38.8 47.1 57.1 54.7 69.2 67.6 72.6

Inventories to production 3.6 3.2 4.8 4.7 3.6 4.4 4.2

Inventories to total

shipments 3.6 3.2 4.9 4.8 3.6 4.4 4.3

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption 1.1 1.8 1.6 2.3 2.1 1.5 1.8

Home market 3.2 5.6 3.3 3.7 3.4 2.9 2.5

Exports to--

The United States 50.0 53.6 48.9 61.2 47.5 41.0 39.1

All other markets 45.7 38.9 46.1 32.9 47.0 54.5 56.6

Total exports 95.7 92.6 95.0 94.1 94.5 95.5 95.8

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VII-5

Table VII-4

Warmwater shrimp: Indian production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-03, JanuaryJune 2003, January-June 2004, and projected 2004-05

Item

Actual experience Projections

2001 2002 2003

January-June

2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity 553,493 581,692 560,721 320,291 312,323 591,523 591,613

Production 187,550 208,376 213,684 96,730 100,570 215,658 216,660

End of period inventories 23,204 24,998 30,778 26,277 29,883 31,912 34,380

Shipments:

Internal consumption 12,520 11,929 18,279 8,599 6,376 9,502 6,090

Home market 275 287 1,225 1,244 1,372 3,316 3,440

Exports to--

The United States 59,710 84,426 81,023 33,920 35,398 73,793 79,333

All other markets 111,726 114,730 118,271 54,409 61,243 135,021 145,797

Total exports 171,436 199,156 199,293 88,330 96,641 208,814 225,130

Total shipments 184,230 211,372 218,798 98,172 104,388 221,631 234,659

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 30.2 33.0 35.3 27.4 29.0 33.5 33.1

Inventories to production 12.4 12.0 14.4 13.6 14.9 14.8 15.9

Inventories to total

shipments 12.6 11.8 14.1 13.4 14.3 14.4 14.7

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption 6.8 5.6 8.4 8.8 6.1 4.3 2.6

Home market 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5

Exports to--

The United States 32.4 39.9 37.0 34.6 33.9 33.3 33.8

All other markets 60.6 54.3 54.1 55.4 58.7 60.9 62.1

Total exports 93.1 94.2 91.1 90.0 92.6 94.2 95.9

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VII-6

Table VII-5

Warmwater shrimp: Thai production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-03, JanuaryJune 2003, January-June 2004, and projected 2004-05

Item

Actual experience Projections

2001 2002 2003

January-June

2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity 466,924 460,205 481,922 242,146 210,122 405,522 485,622

Production 406,796 346,654 412,995 168,413 135,738 334,114 430,177

End of period inventories 65,549 79,183 105,608 99,918 83,183 84,303 79,344

Shipments:

Internal consumption 3,394 2,614 3,242 1,851 3,567 4,938 5,181

Home market 5,937 4,683 5,623 2,682 3,184 7,784 8,910

Exports to--

The United States 247,469 219,852 268,014 98,970 103,754 223,666 250,184

All other markets 133,189 110,851 111,990 45,003 48,115 119,427 170,905

Total exports 380,658 330,703 380,004 143,973 151,869 343,093 421,088

Total shipments 389,989 338,000 388,869 148,506 158,620 355,815 435,180

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 87.1 75.3 85.7 69.6 64.6 82.4 88.6

Inventories to production 16.1 22.8 25.6 29.7 30.6 25.2 18.4

Inventories to total

shipments 16.8 23.4 27.2 33.6 26.2 23.7 18.2

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.2 2.2 1.4 1.2

Home market 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.0

Exports to--

The United States 63.5 65.0 68.9 66.6 65.4 62.9 57.5

All other markets 34.2 32.8 28.8 30.3 30.3 33.6 39.3

Total exports 97.6 97.8 97.7 96.9 95.7 96.4 96.8

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 8

 During the preliminary phase investigations, information provided by the Vietnamese respondents showed that

0.1 percent of the Vietnamese exports to the United States was canned product in 2002. In the final phase

investigations, none of the Vietnamese respondents provided information with regard to canned shrimp operations. 

VII-7

THE INDUSTRY IN VIETNAM

Table VII-6 presents data provided by Vietnamese producers/exporters through their counsel with

respect to their warmwater shrimp operations in Vietnam. Thirty-six firms, all of which exported to the

United States, provided useable data. The shipments to the United States for these firms were equivalent

to 97.1 percent of subject U.S. imports from Vietnam in 2003.8

 

Table VII-6

Warmwater shrimp: Vietnamese production capacity, production, shipments, and inventories, 2001-03,

January-June 2003, January-June 2004, and projected 2004-05

Item

Actual experience Projections

2001 2002 2003

January-June

2003 2004 2004 2005

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Capacity 186,067 241,085 283,062 141,301 142,498 285,283 291,043

Production 163,402 207,190 264,077 115,432 112,196 251,824 267,278

End of period inventories 17,748 27,737 31,085 31,135 28,854 28,961 21,391

Shipments:

Internal consumption 6,636 6,313 10,365 4,190 6,523 7,456 4,928

Home market 17,014 24,350 39,741 20,172 21,236 40,351 35,401

Exports to--

The United States 65,762 95,170 120,937 48,505 33,533 74,769 82,356

All other markets 90,117 85,095 116,127 51,619 59,272 140,729 160,432

Total exports 155,879 180,265 237,064 100,125 92,804 215,498 242,788

Total shipments 179,530 210,928 287,170 124,487 120,564 263,305 283,118

Ratios and shares (percent)

Capacity utilization 87.8 85.9 93.3 81.7 78.7 88.3 91.8

Inventories to production 10.9 13.4 11.8 13.5 12.9 11.5 8.0

Inventories to total

shipments 9.9 13.1 10.8 12.5 12.0 11.0 7.6

Share of total quantity of

shipments:

Internal consumption 3.7 3.0 3.6 3.4 5.4 2.8 1.7

Home market 9.5 11.5 13.8 16.2 17.6 15.3 12.5

Exports to--

The United States 36.6 45.1 42.1 39.0 27.8 28.4 29.1

All other markets 50.2 40.3 40.4 41.5 49.2 53.4 56.7

Total exports 86.8 85.5 82.6 80.4 77.0 81.8 85.8

Note.–Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
VII-8

U.S. INVENTORIES OF PRODUCT FROM THE SUBJECT COUNTRIES

Inventories of product reported by U.S. importers are presented in table VII-7.

Table VII-7

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and

January-June 2004

Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Imports from Brazil:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 960 1,644 1,617 1,350 2,414

Ratio to imports (percent) 5.2 6.1 5.0 3.3 12.1

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 5.6 6.2 4.9 3.3 14.4

Imports from China:

1

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 5,142 12,258 21,574 10,539 14,725

Ratio to imports (percent) 11.9 16.2 20.4 14.9 18.8

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 12.5 18.3 23.3 14.0 15.4

Imports from Ecuador:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 2,796 4,123 5,414 3,248 4,064

Ratio to imports (percent) 9.3 11.0 12.3 6.1 9.6

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 10.1 12.1 13.5 6.5 10.0

Imports from India:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 7,512 6,607 11,156 7,752 7,059

Ratio to imports (percent) 23.3 13.3 21.9 17.2 15.8

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 28.6 13.2 26.6 19.2 15.1

Imports from Thailand:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 42,126 41,959 55,742 43,180 46,537

Ratio to imports (percent) 20.2 23.3 26.9 25.3 31.1

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 21.1 21.5 27.8 24.1 24.1

Imports from Vietnam:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 10,417 12,989 17,885 16,121 20,500

Ratio to imports (percent) 23.0 20.0 21.0 20.6 35.9

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 27.2 20.7 22.6 22.8 35.9

Imports from subject countries (total):

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 68,953 79,581 113,388 82,190 95,300

Ratio to imports (percent) 18.2 18.3 21.6 17.9 24.3

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 19.7 18.3 23.2 18.0 21.2

Table continued on next page.
Item

Calendar year January-June

2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

VII-9

Imports from all other sources:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 19,760 20,734 20,168 14,874 18,722

Ratio to imports (percent) 21.1 20.7 21.2 14.0 14.6

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 21.5 20.6 22.5 13.1 13.7

Imports from all sources:

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 88,713 100,314 133,556 97,064 114,021

Ratio to imports (percent) 18.8 18.8 21.5 17.2 21.9

Ratio to U.S. shipments of imports (percent) 20.1 18.7 23.1 17.0 19.5

 1 Because inventories may include product imported from ZG, inventory levels for China may be slightly overstated. 

Note.--Ratios are based on firms that provided both inventory data and import and/or shipment data. January-June ratios are

based on annualized shipment data.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires. 

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDERS IN THIRD-COUNTRY MARKETS

There are no antidumping duty orders on warmwater shrimp in effect in third-country markets for

any of the countries subject to these investigations.

A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

51472 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 160 / Thursday, August 19, 2004 / Notices 

to preserve and maintain free enterprise 

competition. 

Section 5(a) of the OCS Lands Act 

requires the Secretary to prescribe rules 

and regulations ‘‘to provide for the 

prevention of waste, and conservation of 

the natural resources of the Outer 

Continental Shelf, and the protection of 

correlative rights therein’’ and to 

include provisions ‘‘for the prompt and 

efficient exploration and development 

of a lease area.’’

These information collection requests 

(ICRs) concern forms used to collect 

information required under 30 CFR part 

250. Various sections of 30 CFR part 

250, subpart K, require respondents to 

submit forms MMS–126 and MMS–127. 

MMS District and Regional Supervisors 

use the information on form MMS–126 

for various environmental, reservoir, 

reserves, and conservation analyses, 

including the determination of 

maximum production rates (MPRs) 

when necessary for certain oil and gas 

completions. The form contains 

information concerning the conditions 

and results of a well potential test. This 

requirement implements the 

conservation provisions of the OCS 

Lands Act and 30 CFR part 250. The 

information obtained from the well 

potential test is essential to determine if 

an MPR is necessary for a well and to 

establish the appropriate rate. It is not 

possible to specify an MPR in the 

absence of information about the 

production rate capability (potential) of 

the well. 

MMS District and Regional 

Supervisors use the information 

submitted on form MMS–127 to 

determine whether a rate-sensitive 

reservoir is being prudently developed. 

This represents an essential control 

mechanism that MMS uses to regulate 

production rates from each sensitive 

reservoir being actively produced. 

Occasionally, the information available 

on a reservoir early in its producing life 

may indicate it to be non-sensitive, 

while later and more complete 

information would establish the 

reservoir as being sensitive. Production 

from a well completed in the gas cap of 

a sensitive reservoir requires approval 

from the Regional Supervisor. The 

information submitted on form MMS–

127 provides reservoir parameters that 

are revised at least annually or sooner 

if reservoir development results in a 

change in reservoir interpretation. The 

engineers and geologists use the 

information for rate control and 

reservoir studies. 

MMS will protect information from 

respondents considered proprietary 

under the Freedom of Information Act 

(5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing 

regulations (43 CFR part 2) and under 

regulations at 30 CFR 250.196, ‘‘Data 

and information to be made available to 

the public.’’ No items of a sensitive 

nature are collected. Responses are 

mandatory. 

Frequency: On occasion but not less 

than annually. 

Estimated Number and Description of 

Respondents: Approximately 151 

Federal OCS oil and gas or sulphur 

lessees. 

Estimated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping ‘‘Hour’’ Burden: The 

estimated annual ‘‘hour’’ burden for 

form MMS–126 is a total of 795 hours 

(average burden of 0.6 hour per form). 

The estimated annual ‘‘hour’’ burden for 

form MMS–127 is a total of 1,194 hours 

(average burden of 1.2 hours per form). 

Estimated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’ 

Burden: MMS has identified no ‘‘nonhour cost’’ burden associated with 

either form MMS–126 or MMS–127. 

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA 

(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an 

agency may not conduct or sponsor a 

collection of information unless it 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Until OMB approves a 

collection of information, you are not 

obligated to respond. 

Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of 

the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) 

requires each agency ’’* * * to provide 

notice * * * and otherwise consult 

with members of the public and affected 

agencies concerning each proposed 

collection of information * * *’’

Agencies must specifically solicit 

comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the agency to perform its 

duties, including whether the 

information is useful; (b) evaluate the 

accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the 

burden of the proposed collection of 

information; (c) enhance the quality, 

usefulness, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (d) 

minimize the burden on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

To comply with the public 

consultation process, on December 12, 

2003, we published a Federal Register

notice (68 FR 69419) announcing that 

we would submit this ICR to OMB for 

approval. The notice provided the 

required 60-day comment period. In 

addition, § 250.199 provides the OMB 

control numbers for the information 

collection requirements imposed by the 

30 CFR part 250 regulations and forms; 

specifies that the public may comment 

at anytime on these collections of 

information; and provides the address to 

which they should send comments. This 

information is also contained in the 

PRA statement on each of the forms. We 

have received no comments in response 

to these efforts. 

If you wish to comment in response 

to this notice, you may send your 

comments to the offices listed under the 

ADDRESSES section of this notice. OMB 

has up to 60 days to approve or 

disapprove the information collection 

but may respond after 30 days. 

Therefore, to ensure maximum 

consideration, OMB should receive 

public comments by September 20, 

2004. 

Public Comment Policy: MMS’s 

practice is to make comments, including 

names and addresses of respondents, 

available for public review during 

regular business hours. If you wish your 

name and/or address to be withheld, 

you must state this prominently at the 

beginning of your comment. MMS will 

honor the request to the extent 

allowable by the law; however, 

anonymous comments will not be 

considered. All submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public inspection in 

their entirety. 

MMS Federal Register Liaison Officer:

Denise Johnson (202) 208–3976.

Dated: April 14, 2004. 

E.P. Danenberger, 

Chief, Engineering and Operations Division.

[FR Doc. 04–19003 Filed 8–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–1063–1068 

(Final)] 

Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater 

Shrimp and Prawns From Brazil, 

China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and 

Vietnam

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of the final phase of 

antidumping investigations. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of the final 

phase of antidumping investigations 

Nos. 731–TA–1063–1068 (Final) under 

section 735(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

(19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)) (the Act) to 

determine whether an industry in the 

United States is materially injured or 

threatened with material injury, or the 

establishment of an industry in the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 160 / Thursday, August 19, 2004 / Notices 51473

1For purposes of these investigations, the 

Department of Commerce has defined the subject 

merchandise as ‘‘certain warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether frozen or canned, wild-caught 

(ocean harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or 

peeled, tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, 

cooked or raw, or otherwise processed in frozen or 

canned form. 

‘‘The frozen or canned warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of the 

investigation, regardless of definitions in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 

(HTSUS), are products which are processed from 

warmwater shrimp and prawns through either 

freezing or canning 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 wildcaught warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), 

banana prawn (Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn 

(Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn 

(Penaeus monodon), redspotted shrimp (Penaeus 

brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp (Penaeus 

subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), 

southern rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus 

curvirostris), southern white shrimp (Penaeus 

schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), 

western white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and 

Indian white prawn (Penaeus indicus). 

‘‘Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with 

marinade, spices or sauce are included in the scope 

of the investigation. In addition, food preparations, 

which are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain more 

than 20 percent by weight of shrimp or prawn are 

also included in the scope of the investigation. 

‘‘Excluded from the scope are (1) breaded shrimp 

and prawns (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 (0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns in prepared 

meals (1605.20.05.10); and (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns. 

‘‘The products covered by this scope are currently 

classifiable 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, 

1605.20.10.30, and 1605.20.10.40. ’’

United States is materially retarded, by 

reason of less-than-fair-value imports 

from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, 

Thailand, and Vietnam of certain frozen 

or canned warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, provided for in subheadings 

0306.13.00 and 1605.20.10 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS).1

For further information concerning 

the conduct of this phase of the 

investigations, hearing procedures, and 

rules of general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).

DATES: Effective: July 16, 2004 (China 

and Vietnam); August 4, 2004 (Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, and Thailand).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

McClure ((202) 205–3191), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 

(202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at (202) 205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

these investigations may be viewed on 

the Commission’s electronic docket 

(EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—The final phase of 

these investigations is being scheduled 

as a result of affirmative preliminary 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce that imports of certain frozen 

or canned warmwater shrimp and 

prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, 

India, Thailand, and Vietnam are being 

sold in the United States at less than fair 

value within the meaning of section 733 

of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b). The 

investigations were requested in 

petitions filed on December 31, 2003, by 

the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action 

Committee, Washington, DC.

Participation in the investigations and 

public service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the final phase of these 

investigations as parties must file an 

entry of appearance with the Secretary 

to the Commission, as provided in 

section 201.11 of the Commission’s 

rules, no later than 21 days prior to the 

hearing date specified in this notice. A 

party that filed a notice of appearance 

during the preliminary phase of the 

investigations need not file an 

additional notice of appearance during 

this final phase. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the investigations. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in the final phase of these 

investigations available to authorized 

applicants under the APO issued in the 

investigations, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days prior to the hearing date specified 

in this notice. Authorized applicants 

must represent interested parties, as 

defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), who are 

parties to the investigations. A party 

granted access to BPI in the preliminary 

phase of the investigations need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the final phase of these 

investigations will be placed in the 

nonpublic record on November 15, 

2004, and a public version will be 

issued thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.22 of the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the final 

phase of these investigations beginning 

at 9:30 a.m. on December 1, 2004, at the 

U.S. International Trade Commission 

Building. Requests to appear at the 

hearing should be filed in writing with 

the Secretary to the Commission on or 

before November 19, 2004. A nonparty 

who has testimony that may aid the 

Commission’s deliberations may request 

permission to present a short statement 

at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on November 23, 

2004, at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), and 

207.24 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

days prior to the date of the hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party 

who is an interested party shall submit 

a prehearing brief to the Commission. 

Prehearing briefs must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.23 of the 

Commission’s rules; the deadline for 

filing is November 22, 2004. Parties may 

also file written testimony in connection 

with their presentation at the hearing, as 

provided in section 207.24 of the 

Commission’s rules, and posthearing 

briefs, which must conform with the 

provisions of section 207.25 of the 

Commission’s rules. The deadline for 

filing posthearing briefs is December 8, 

2004; witness testimony must be filed 

no later than three days before the 

hearing. In addition, any person who 

has not entered an appearance as a party 

to the investigations may submit a 

written statement of information 

pertinent to the subject of the 

investigations on or before December 8, 

2004. On December 27, 2004, the 

Commission will make available to 

51474 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 160 / Thursday, August 19, 2004 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by Bestt Liebco; Elder & Jenks, Inc.; 

Purdy Corp.; Shur-Line; True Value Manufacturing; 

and Wooster Brush Co., and the response of the 

Paint Applicator Division of the American Brush 

Manufacturers Association, to be individually 

adequate. Comments from other interested parties 

will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 207.62(d)(2)).

parties all information on which they 

have not had an opportunity to 

comment. Parties may submit final 

comments on this information on or 

before December 29, 2004, but such 

final comments must not contain new 

factual information and must otherwise 

comply with section 207.30 of the 

Commission’s rules. All written 

submissions must conform with the 

provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

investigations must be served on all 

other parties to the investigations (as 

identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service.

Authority: These investigations is being 

conducted under authority of title VII of the 

Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published 

pursuant to section 207.21 of the 

Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Dated: August 13, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–18985 Filed 8–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–244 (Second 

Review)] 

Natural Bristle Paintbrushes From 

China

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission.

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on natural bristle 

paintbrushes from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on natural bristle 

paintbrushes from China would be 

likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. For further 

information concerning the conduct of 

this review and rules of general 

application, consult the Commission’s 

Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 

201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 

201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and 

F (19 CFR part 207).

DATES: August 6, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra Baker ((202) 205–3180), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 

(202) 205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at (202) 205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http://

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On August 6, 2004, the 

Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (69 

FR 24191, May 3, 2004) of the subject 

five-year review was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act.

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

September 1, 2004, and made available 

to persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for this 

review. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 

September 7, 2004, and may not contain 

new factual information. Any person 

that is neither a party to the five-year 

review nor an interested party may 

submit a brief written statement (which 

shall not contain any new factual 

information) pertinent to the review by 

September 7, 2004. However, should the 

Department of Commerce extend the 

time limit for its completion of the final 

results of its review, the deadline for 

comments (which may not contain new 

factual information) on Commerce’s 

final results is three business days after 

the issuance of Commerce’s results. If 

comments contain business proprietary 

information (BPI), they must conform 

with the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002).

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the rules, each document 

filed by a party to the review must be 

served on all other parties to the review 

(as identified by either the public or BPI 

service list), and a certificate of service 

must be timely filed. The Secretary will 

not accept a document for filing without 

a certificate of service.

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules.

By order of the Commission.

Dated: August 13, 2004. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission.

[FR Doc. 04–18986 Filed 8–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration 

Steven A. Barnes, M.D.; Revocation of 

Registration 

On September 16, 2004, the Deputy 

Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA), issued an Order 


Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 70997

on refinery inputs covered under 

HTSUS Subheadings 2709.00.10, 

2709.00.20, 2710.11.25, 2710.11.45, 

2710.19.05, 2710.19.10, 2710.19.45, 

2710.91.00, 2710.99.05, 2710.99.10, 

2710.99.16, 2710.99.21 and 2710.99.45 

which are used in the production of: 

—certain petrochemical feedstocks 

and refinery by-products; 

—products for export; 

—and, products eligible for entry 

under HTSUS Subheadings 9808.00.30 

and 9808.00.40 (U.S. Government 

purchases). 

3. The authority with regard to the 

NPF option is initially granted until 

September 30, 2005, subject to 

extension. 

The zone grantees on behalf of the 

refining/petrochemical facilities listed 

below are now requesting that the 

authority for the NPF option (Condition 

3) be extended. 

The refineries/petrochemical 

complexes produce fuels and 

petrochemical feedstocks from crude oil 

and other inputs, such as naphtha and 

natural gas condensate. Fuel products 

include gasoline, jet fuel, distillates, 

residual fuels, and motor fuel 

blendstocks. Petrochemical feedstocks 

and refinery by-products produced 

under zone procedures (NPF option) 

have included: benzene, toluene, 

xylene, naphthalene, natural gas—

liquified & gaseous, ethane, propane, 

butane, ethylene, propylene, butylene, 

butadiene, paraffin waxes & petroleum 

jelly, carbon black oil, petroleum coke, 

asphalt, sulfur, sulfuric acid, cumene, 

pseudocumene, n-pentane and 

isopentane, isoprene, 

dicyclopentadiene, styrene, other 

aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures, 

mixtures of hydrocarbons not elsewhere 

specified, and certain other saturated 

and unsaturated acyclic and cyclic 

hydrocarbons. (Although the refining/

petrochemical plants vary in their 

petroleum product slate, the review 

would generally include the full range 

of products listed above for all 

refineries.) 

Zone procedures exempt the 

refineries from Customs duty payments 

on the foreign products used in exports. 

On domestic sales, the NPF option 

allows the companies to choose the 

Customs duty rates that apply to certain 

petrochemical feedstocks and refinery 

by-products (HTSUS duty rates for most 

of these products are zero) by admitting 

incoming foreign crude oil and natural 

gas condensate in non-privileged foreign 

status. Such petrochemicals and byproducts account for about 25 to 30 

percent of refinery activity, on average. 

The duty rates on inputs range from 

5.25¢/barrel to 10.5¢/barrel. Duties on 

inputs used to make fuel products 

(motor gasoline, jet fuel, blendstocks), 

which constitute some 70 to 75 percent 

of production, will continue to be 

dutiable at the crude oil rate. The 

applications indicate that the 

continuation of authority to elect nonprivileged foreign status will contribute 

to the refineries’ international 

competitiveness.

Board order Subzone Company Location Docket No. 

Grantee: Port of Long Beach, California 

1050 .................. 50G .......... Shell Oil Products U.S. .............................. Los Angeles, CA ........................................ Doc. 54(1)–04 

Grantee: Port of Corpus Christi Authority 

1086 .................. 122N ........ Equistar Chemicals, LP ............................. Nueces Co., TX ......................................... Doc. 54(2)–04 

Grantee: Port of Freeport, Texas 

1087 .................. 149F ........ Equistar Chemicals, LP ............................. Brazoria Co., TX ........................................ Doc. 54(3)–04 

1088 .................. 149G ........ Dow Chemical Company ........................... Brazoria Co., TX ........................................ Doc. 54(3)–04 

Grantee: Board of Harbor Commissioners of the City of Los Angeles 

1032 .................. 202C ........ ConocoPhillips Company .......................... Los Angeles, CA ........................................ Fov. 54(5)–04 

In accordance with the Board’s 

regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff 

has been designated examiner to 

investigate the requests and report to the 

Board. 

Public comment on these proposals is 

invited from interested parties. 

Submissions (original and 3 copies) 

shall be addressed to the Board’s 

Executive Secretary at one of the 

following addresses: 

1. Submissions Via Express/Package 

Delivery Services: Foreign-Trade-Zones 

Board, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Franklin Court Building—Suite 4100W, 

1099 14th St. NW., Washington, DC 

20005; or 

2. Submissions Via the U.S. Postal 

Service: Foreign-Trade-Zones Board, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, FCB—

Suite 4100W, 1401 Constitution Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The closing period for their receipt is 

February 7, 2005. Rebuttal comments in 

response to material submitted during 

the foregoing period may be submitted 

during the subsequent 15-day period (to 

February 22, 2005). 

Copies of the requests will be 

available for public inspection at the 

Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones 

Board’s Executive Secretary at address 

Number 1 listed above.

Dated: December 2, 2004. 

Dennis Puccinelli, 

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 04–26974 Filed 12–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–893] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

From the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex 

Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

IX, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3208. 

Final Determination 

We determine that certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) is 

being, or is likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(‘‘LTFV’’) as provided in section 735 of 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’). The estimated margins of sales at 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section of this 

notice.

SUMMARY: On July 16, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV, partial affirmative preliminary 

determination of critical circumstances 

and postponement of the final 

determination in the antidumping 

investigation of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

PRC. On September 1, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published an 

70998 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 

1Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd., Allied 

Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd., King Royal Investments, 

Ltd., Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) 

Co., Ltd., and Allied Pacific Aquatic Products 

(Zhongshan) Co., Ltd. (collectively, ‘‘Allied’’), Yelin 

Entprise Co. Hong Kong (‘‘HK Yelin’’) and its 

suppliers, Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., 

Yangjiang City Yelin Hoi Tat Quick Frozen Seafood 

Co., Ltd., and Fuqing Yahua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. 

(collectively, ‘‘Yelin’’), Shantou Red Garden 

Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (‘‘Red Garden’’) and Zhanjiang 

Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhanjiang 

Guolian’’).

2Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Asian 

Seafoods’’); Beihai Zhengwu Industry Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Beihai Zhengwu’’); Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Shantou/Chaoyang Qiaofeng’’ (Group) Co., 

Ltd.) (‘‘Shantou/Chaoyang Qiaofeng’’); Chenghai 

Nichi Lan Food Co., Ltd.; Dalian FTZ Sea-Rich 

International Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dalian FTZ SeaRich’’); Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants 

(‘‘Dongri Aquatic’’); Fuqing Dongwei Aquatic 

Products Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fuqing Dongwei’’); 

Fuqing Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

(Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff Co., Ltd.) (‘‘Fuqing 

Longwei’’); Gallant Ocean (Liangiang) Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Gallant Ocean’’); Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food 

Allocation Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hainan Fruit Vegetable 

Food’’); Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd./

Hainan Brich Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hainan 

Golden’’); Jinfu Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Jinfu Trading’’); 

Kaifeng Ocean Sky Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Kaifeng’’); 

Leizhou Zhulian Frozen Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘Leizhou 

Zhulian’’); Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen 

Industry Co., Ltd./Shengping Shantou (‘‘Meizhou’’); 

Pingyang Xinye Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Pingyang Xinye’’); Savvy Seafood Inc. (‘‘Savvy’’); 

Shanghai Linghai Fisheries Economic & Trading 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Linghai’’); Shanghai Taoen 

International Trading Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shanghai Taoen’’); 

Shantou Freezing Aquatic Product Food Stuffs Co. 

(‘‘Shantou Freezing’’); Shantou Jinhang Aquatic 

Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shantou Jinhang’’); Shantou 

Jinyuan District Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory 

(‘‘Mingfeng’’); Shantou Ocean Freezing Industry & 

Trade General Corporation (‘‘Shantou Ocean’’); 

Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shantou 

Ruiyuan’’); Shantou Sez Xu Hao Fastness Freeze 

Aquatic Factory Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shantou Sez Xuhao’’); 

Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Shantou Shengping Oceanstar’’); Shantou Wanya 

Food Factory Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shantou Wanya’’); Shantou 

Yuexing Enterprise Company (‘‘Shantou Yuexing’’); 

Taizhou Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Taizhou 

Zhonghuan’’); Xuwen Hailang Breeding Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Xuwen Hailang’’); Yantai Wei-Cheng Food Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Yantai Wei-Cheng’’); Zhangjiang Bobogo 

Ocean Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhanjiang Bobogo’’); Zhangjiang 

Newpro Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhanjiang Newpro’’); 

Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and 

Technology Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhanjiang Evergreen’’); 

Zhanjiang Go-Harvest Aquatic Products Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Zhanjiang Go-harvest’’); Zhanjiang Runhai Foods 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhanjiang Runhai’’); Zhanjiang 

Universal Seafood Corp. (‘‘Zhanjiang Universal’’); 

Zhejiang Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhejiang Cereals’’); Zhejiang Daishan 

Baofa Aquatic Product Co., Ltd. (‘‘Daishan’’); 

Zhejiang Evernew Seafood Corp., Ltd. (‘‘Zhejiang 

Evernew’’); Zhejiang Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic 

Products Co, Ltd. (‘‘Lingyang’’); Zhejiang Zhenglong 

Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhejiang Zhenlong’’); 

Zhoushan Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & 

Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhoushan Cereals’’); Zhoushan 

Diciyuan Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhoushan 

Diciyuan’’); Zhoushan Haichang Food Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Zhoushan Haichang’’); Zhoushan Huading 

Seafood Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhoushan Huading’’); Zhoushan 

Industrial Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhoushan Industrial’’); 

Zhoushan Lizhou Fishery Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhoushan 

Lizhou’’); Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Zhoushan Putuo’’); Zhoushan Xifeng Aquatic 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhoushan Xifeng’’); Zhoushan Zhenyang 

Developing Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhoushan Zhenyang’’); and 

ZJ CNF Sea Products Engineering Ltd./CNF 

Zhangjiang (Tong Lian) (‘‘ZJ CNF Sea Products’’).

3 Yelin Enterprise Co. Hong Kong, a Hong Kong 

exporter of subject merchandise and its wholly or 

partially owned subsidiaries, Shantou Yelin Frozen 

Seafood Co. (Shantou, China), Yangjiang City Yelin 

Hoi Tat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd. (Hailing, 

China), and Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. 

(Fujing China), Chinese producers and/or resellers 

of merchandise subject to this investigation, and 

Ocean Duke Corporation, the U.S. importing and 

resale affiliate of HK Yelin (collectively referred to 

as ‘‘Yelin,’’ unless otherwise identified).

amended preliminary determination of 

sales at less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’). 

During the investigation, the 

Department examined sales information 

from four shrimp processors that were 

selected as Mandatory Respondents.1 In 

addition, fifty-three companies 

requested separate rates and we refer to 

them, collectively, as the Section A 

Respondents.2 We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

determination and amended 

preliminary determination. Based on 

our analysis of the comments we 

received, we have made changes to our 

calculations for the four Mandatory 

Respondents. As a result of those 

changes, the rate assigned to companies 

which received a separate rate has also 

changed.

Case History 

The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination in this 

investigation on June 24, 2004. See 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 

42654 (July 16, 2004) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). On September 1, 2004, 

the Department published an amended 

preliminary determination. See Notice 

of Amended Preliminary Antidumping 

Duty Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 53409 

(September 1, 2004) (‘‘Amended 

Preliminary Determination’’). 

Since the publication of the 

Preliminary Determination, the 

following events have occurred. The 

Department conducted verification of 

the Mandatory Respondents: Allied on 

August 23, and 25 through 27, 2004; 

Red Garden/Shantou Jinyuan District 

Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory 

(‘‘Mingfeng’’) (one of Red Garden’s 

suppliers during the POI) on August 15 

through 19, 2004; Yelin on August 27, 

and August 31 through September 2, 

2004; and Zhanjiang Guolian on August 

16 through 20, 2004; and the two 

Section A Respondents, Meizhou 

Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Meizhou’’) on August 23, 

2004, and Shantou Ocean Freezing on 

August 25 through 26, 2004, in the PRC. 

See the ‘‘Verification’’ Section below for 

additional information. 

We received comments from the Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, 

Versaggi Shrimp Corporation and Indian 

Ridge Shrimp Company, hereinafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘Petitioners’’, 

a number of respondents and other 

interested parties to this investigation 

that addressed issues including: 

Mandatory Respondent Selection; 

Section A Respondents; Scope; and 

other issues. 

On October 19, 2004, parties 

submitted case briefs. On October 26, 

2004, parties submitted rebuttal briefs. 

On November 5, 2004, the Department 

held a public hearing in accordance 

with section 351.310(d)(l) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

Representatives for the Mandatory and 

Section A Respondents, the Petitioners, 

the PRC government and the PRC 

Chamber of Commerce were in 

attendance. On November 23, 2004, the 

Department convened a public hearing 

on scope issues. 

Mandatory Respondents 

On July 16, 2004, the following 

companies submitted sales 

reconciliation documentation: 

Zhangjian Guolian; Yelin3; Allied; and 

Red Garden. On July 27, 2004, the 

Department sent the 4th supplemental 

questionnaires addressing certain 

deficiencies in Section C and D 

responses to: Allied, Zhanjiang Guolian, 

Red Garden and Yelin.

On July 28, 2004, the Department 

granted Zhanjiang Guolian’s request for 

an extension to submit surrogate value 

data with an extension until August 4, 

2004. On July 29, 2004, the Department 

documented the submission of new 

information by Allied. See 

Memorandum to the File from Julia 

Hancock Regarding the Submission of 

New Information (July 29, 2004). 

On August 2, 2004, the Department 

received and granted an extension 

request from Red Garden for submitting 

its supplemental questionnaire 

response. On August 3, 2004, the 

Department received and granted an 

extension request from Zhanjiang 

Guolian for responding to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire. On August 3, 2004, the 

Department received the 4th 

supplemental questionnaire response 

from Allied and the Department also 

received Yelin’s response to the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 70999

4Allied and Yelin (collectively ‘‘GDLSK 

Respondents’’).

Department’s 2nd supplemental Section 

A questionnaire. 

On August 4, 2004, the Department 

received Meizhou’s request for an 

extension of the deadline to respond to 

the Department’s request for submission 

of a sales reconciliation package. The 

Department granted this request on 

August 6, 2004. The Department also 

received Zhanjiang Guolian’s response 

to the Department’s 4th supplemental 

questionnaire dated July 27, 2004. 

On August 9, 2004, the Department 

received Yelin’s supplemental 

information prior to verification and 

Meizhou’s sales reconciliation 

information. The Department also sent 

verification outlines to Zhanjiang 

Guolian, Allied, Meizhou, Shantou 

Ocean, and Red Garden and its 

suppliers, Mingfeng and Shantou 

Longfeng Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Longfeng’’). 

On August 11, 2004, the Department 

received Petitioners’ pre-verification 

comments regarding Red Garden and 

Zhanjiang Guolian. On August 12, 2004, 

the Department received Allied’s, 

Yelin’s and Red Garden’s supplemental 

questionnaire responses. 

On August 16, 2004, the Department 

received Yelin’s 3rd supplemental 

questionnaire response, Red Garden’s 

and Zhanjiang Guolian’s pre-verification 

corrections and a notice of intent to 

participate in the hearing from 

Petitioners. On August 17, 2004, the 

Department received Petitioners’ preverification comments regarding 

Meizhou. On August 19, 2004, the 

Department sent a verification agenda 

outline to Yelin and its suppliers. On 

August 20, 2004, the Department 

received Petitioners’ pre-verification 

comments regarding Yelin. 

On August 26, 2004, the Department 

received a letter from Yelin requesting 

that their August 9, 2004 submission be 

removed from the record. On August 31, 

2004, the Department received 

corrections to Allied’s pre-verification 

corrections and revisions to Yelin’s 

August 9, 2004 submission. On 

September 7, 2004, the Department 

received revised exhibits from Yelin to 

its August 9, 2004 submission. 

On September 8, 2004, the 

Department received Zhanjiang 

Guolian’s, Allied’s, Yelin’s Red 

Garden’s and Petitioners’ surrogate 

value data, as well as additional 

surrogate information from the 

Mandatory Respondents. On September 

15, 2004, the Department received 

Petitioners’ comments on Yelin’s 

September 7, 2004 submission. On 

September 16, 2004, the Department 

removed Yelin’s September 7, 2004 

submission from the record. 

On September 20, 2004, the 

Department received Zhanjiang 

Guolian’s, Allied’s and Yelin’s 

additional factual information. On 

September 20, 2004, the Department 

received Petitioners’ factual information 

rebuttal to the respondents’ data as well 

as a request for an extension of the 

briefing schedule. On September 22, 

2004, the Department released 

verification reports for Meizhou, Red 

Garden, Mingfeng, and Shantou Ocean. 

On September 24, 2004, the Department 

released the verification reports for 

Allied and Zhanjiang Guolian. On 

October 12, 2004, the Department 

released Yelin’s verification report. 

On November 8, 2004, the Department 

sent letters to Zhanjiang Guolian, Allied 

and Yelin concerning the verifications 

of those companies. On November 23, 

2004, Petitioners submitted comments 

on Red Garden’s November 19, 2004 

response, arguing that Red Garden 

submitted more than minor corrections. 

Section A Respondents 

On July 19, 2004, the following 

companies submitted new factual 

information regarding their separate 

rates claim: Shantou Yuexing; Zhanjiang 

Go-Harvest, Shantou/Chaoyang 

Qiaofeng, Zhanjiang Runhai, Fuqing 

Longwei, Shantou Jinhang; Zhanjiang 

Evergreen; and Fuqing Dongwei. On 

July 21, 2004, the Department sent out 

second supplemental Section A 

questionnaires to the following 

respondents: Shantou Ocean, Beihai 

Zhengwu, Zhoushan Lizhou, Zhoushan 

Cereals, Zhanjiang Bobogo, Yantai WeiCheng, Shantou/Chaoyang Qiaofeng, 

Dongri Aquatic, Shantou Yuexing, 

Zhanjiang Newpro, Zhoushan Huading, 

Pingyang Xinye and Xuwen Hailang. 

On July 26, 2004, the Department 

received a request for an extension of 

time to answer the Department’s 2nd 

supplemental Section A questionnaire 

from Beihai Zhengwu. On July 28, 2004, 

the Department received extension 

requests from GDLSK Respondents.4

On August 2, 2004, the Department 

sent 2nd supplemental Section A 

questionnaires to the following 

companies: Shantou Ocean, Shantou/

Chaoyang Qiaofeng, Xuwen Hailang, 

and the Department sent and received 

2nd supplemental Section A 

questionnaire responses the same day 

from Dongri Aquatic, Shantou Freezing, 

Zhanjiang Newpro and Shantou 

Yuexing. On August 4, 2004, the 

Department received 2nd supplemental 

Section A responses from Zhoushan 

Cereals, Zhoushan Lizhou, Zhoushan 

Hauding, Pingyang Xinye, Yantai WeiCheng and Beihai Zhengwu. On August 

4, 2004, the Department received 

Zhanjiang Bobogo’s 2nd supplemental 

Section A response. 

On September 3, 2004, the 

Department received case briefs from 

the following exporters who did not 

receive a separate rate in the 

Preliminary Determination: Shantou/

Chaoyang Qiaofeng, Fuqing Dongwei, 

Fuqing Longwei, Leizhou Zhulian, 

Shantou Freezing, Shantou Jinhang, 

Shantou Ruiyuan, Zhanjiang Evergreen, 

Zhanjiang Go-harvest, and Zhanjiang 

Runhai. On October 18, 2004, the 

Department received Hainan Golden’s 

case brief. 

On October 19, 2004, the Department 

received case briefs from: Jinfu Trading, 

Zhangjian Guolian, Zhoushan Haichang, 

Asian Seafoods, Shantou Sez Xuhao, 

Zhejiang Evernew, Zhejiang Zhenglong, 

Zhoushan Industrial, Zhoushan Putuo, 

Zhoushan Xifeng, Daishan, Zhoushan 

Zhenyang, Yelin, Allied, Lingyang, 

Kaifeng, Shanghai Linghai, Zhoushan 

Diciyuan, Red Garden, Zhejiang Cereals, 

Taizhou Zhonghuan and Petitioners. On 

October 26, 2004, the Department 

received rebuttal briefs from Savvy, 

Zhanjiang Bobogo, Jinfu Trading, 

Zhangjian Guolian, Zhoushan Haichang, 

Zhejiang Evernew, Zhejiang Zhenglong, 

Zhoushan Industrial, Zhoushan Putuo, 

Zhoushan Xifeng, Daishan, Zhoushan 

Zhenyang, Yelin, Allied, Lingyang, 

Kaifeng, Shanghai Linghai, Zhoushan 

Diciyuan, Zhejiang Cereals, Taizhou 

Zhonghuan, Meizhou, Mingfeng, and 

Longfeng. On November 19, 2004, the 

Department received Red Garden’s postverification response.

Scope Comments by Interested Parties 

On July 16, 2004, the Department 

received a scope exclusion request on 

behalf of Xian-Ning Seafood Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Xian-Ning’’) asking the Department to 

determine whether shrimp scampi is 

outside the scope of the antidumping 

investigation. On August 2, 2004, the 

Department received scope comments 

from Eastern Fish/Long John Silver 

(‘‘Eastern Fish/LJS’’). On September 24, 

2004, the Department received Lee Kum 

Kee’s request to determine whether 

shrimp sauce is outside the scope of this 

investigation. The Department 

scheduled a scope hearing for November 

8, 2004, but postponed the hearing until 

November 23, 2004. On October 20, 

2004, the Department received case 

briefs regarding dusted shrimp from 

Eastern Fish/LJS and Xian-Ning and 

also received a notice of intent from 

them to participate in the hearing. On 

October 25, 2004, the Department 

received a rebuttal brief from Eastern 

71000 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 

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

includes the telson and the uropods.

Fish/LJS. On November 2, 2004, the 

Department received a letter from the 

American Breaded Shrimp Processors 

Association (‘‘ABSPA’’) objecting to the 

decision to cancel the hearing on scope 

issues. On November 4, 2004, the 

Department also sent a letter to ABSPA 

notifying them that they did not submit 

any case or rebuttal briefs in the scope 

issues and that they could not make any 

presentations in the scope hearing 

because they did not submit any case or 

rebuttal briefs. On November 18, 2004, 

Department officials met with 

Petitioners on the appropriate surrogate 

values for raw shrimp and whether or 

not to exclude dusted and battered 

shrimp from the scope of the 

investigations involving all of the 

countries in the shrimp investigations 

(Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, PRC 

and Vietnam). On November 22, 2004, 

Department of Commerce officials met 

with representatives of Xian-Ning, to 

discuss their scope exclusion request for 

shrimp scampi. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The issue of separate rates raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 

this investigation are addressed in the 

Final Separate Rates Memorandum, 

dated November 29, 2004 (‘‘Final 

Separate Rates Memorandum’’), which 

is hereby adopted by this notice. The 

various scope issues are discussed in 

the ‘‘Scope Comments’’ section of this 

notice and the separate scope 

memoranda referenced in that section. 

All other issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties in this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum, dated 

November 29, 2004, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’). A list of the issues 

which parties raised and to which we 

respond in the Decision Memorandum

is attached to this notice as an 

Appendix. The Decision Memorandum

is a public document and is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main 

Commerce Building, Room B–099, and 

is accessible on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Scope Comments 

On November 29, 2004, the 

Department made a scope determination 

with respect to Lee Kum Kee’s shrimp 

sauce. See Memorandum from Edward 

C. Yang, Vietnam/NME Unit 

Coordinator, Import Administration to 

Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Antidumping 

Investigation on Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, Thailand, the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Scope 

Clarification on Lee Kum Kee’s Shrimp 

Sauce (‘‘Shrimp Sauce Scope Memo’’), 

dated November 29, 2004. Based on the 

information presented by interested 

parties, the Department determines that 

Lee Kum Kee’s shrimp sauce is 

excluded from the scope of this 

investigation. See Shrimp Sauce Scope 

Memo at 8. 

On November 29, 2004, the 

Department made a scope determination 

with respect to shrimp scampi. See 

Memorandum from Edward C. Yang, 

Vietnam/NME Unit Coordinator, Import 

Administration to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Antidumping 

Investigation on Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, Thailand, the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Scope 

Clarification on Shrimp Scampi

(‘‘Shrimp Scampi Scope Memo’’), dated 

November 29, 2004. Based on the 

information presented by interested 

parties, the Department determines that 

shrimp scampi is included in the scope 

of this investigation. See Shrimp 

Scampi Scope Memo at 8. 

Additionally, on November 29, 2004, 

the Department made a scope 

determination with respect to dusted 

shrimp and battered shrimp. See 

Memorandum from Edward C. Yang, 

Vietnam/NME Unit Coordinator, Import 

Administration to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Antidumping 

Investigation on Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, Thailand, the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Scope 

Clarification on Dusted Shrimp and 

Battered Shrimp (‘‘Dusted/Battered 

Scope Memo2’’), dated November 29, 

2004. Based on the information 

presented by interested parties, the 

Department determines that (1) certain 

dusted shrimp, produced from fresh (or 

thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp 

to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or 

wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity 

has been applied so that the entire 

surface of the shrimp flesh is thoroughly 

and evenly coated with the flour and the 

non-shrimp content of the end product 

constitutes between 4 to 10 percent of 

the product’s total weight after being 

dusted, but prior to being frozen and is 

subjected to individually quick frozen 

freezing immediately after application 

of the dusting layer; and (2) battered 

shrimp, when dusted in accordance 

with the definition of dusting, coated 

with a wet viscous layer containing egg 

and/or milk, and par-fried are excluded 

from the scope of this investigation. See 

Dusted/Battered Scope Memo at 28.

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes certain warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether frozen or canned, 

wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farmraised (produced by aquaculture), headon or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tailon or tail-off,5 deveined or not 

deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise 

processed in frozen or canned form.

The frozen or canned warmwater 

shrimp and prawn products included in 

the scope of the investigations, 

regardless of definitions in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

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

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through either 

freezing or canning 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 

investigation. 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 

investigation. 

Excluded from the scope are (1) 

breaded shrimp and prawns 

(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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 71001

6 Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product that 

(1) 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) So that the entire surface of 

the shrimp flesh is thoroughly and evenly coated 

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

the end product constitutes between 4 to 10 percent 

of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but 

prior to being frozen; and (5) Is subjected to IQF 

freezing immediately after application of the 

dusting layer. See Memorandum from Edward C. 

Yang, NME Unit Coordinator, Import 

Administration to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration Antidumping Investigation on 

Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Scope Clarification on Dusted Shrimp and 

Battered Shrimp (‘‘Dusted/Battered Scope 

Memo2’’), dated November 29, 2004.

7Battered 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.

whether shell-on or peeled 

(0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 

shrimp and prawns in prepared meals 

(1605.20.05.10); and (5) dried shrimp 

and prawns. 

The products covered by this 

investigation are currently classified 

under the following HTSUS subheading: 

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, 1605.20.10.30, and 

1605.20.10.40. These HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written descriptions of the scope of 

this investigation is dispositive. 

The Department has issued nine 

decisions regarding the scope of the 

merchandise covered by this 

investigation: (1) On May 21, 2004, the 

Department declined to expand the 

scope of this investigation to include 

fresh (never frozen) shrimp; (2) on July 

2, 2004, pursuant to a request from 

Ocean Duke, the Department found that 

its ‘‘Seafood Mix’’ is excluded from the 

scope of this investigation; (3) on July 2, 

2004, the Department found that salad 

shrimp, sold in counts of 250 pieces or 

higher, are included within the scope of 

the this investigation; (4) on July 2, 

2004, the Department found 

Macrobrachium Rosenbergii and organic 

shrimp included within the scope of 

this investigation; (5) on July 2, 2004, 

the Department found that peeled 

shrimp are included within the scope of 

this investigation; (6) on November 29, 

2004, the Department found that shrimp 

sauce is excluded from the scope of this 

investigation; (7) on November 29, 2004, 

the Department found Xian-Ning 

Seafood Co., Ltd.’s scampi shrimp 

included within the scope of this 

investigation; (8) on November 29, 2004, 

the Department found certain dusted 

shrimp 6 are outside the scope of this 

investigation; and (9) on November 29, 

2004, the Department found certain 

battered shrimp 7 are outside the scope 

of this investigation.

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the Mandatory 

Respondents and certain Section A 

Respondents for use in our final 

determination. See the Department’s 

verification reports on the record of this 

investigation in the CRU with respect to 

Allied, Red Garden, Yelin, Zhanjiang 

Guolian, Shantou Ocean, and Meizhou. 

For all verified companies, we used 

standard verification procedures, 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, as 

well as original source documents 

provided by the respondents. 

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (‘‘POI’’) is 

April 1, 2003, through September 30, 

2003. This period corresponds to the 

two most recent fiscal quarters prior to 

the month of the filing of the petition. 

See Section 351.204(b)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected India as the 

appropriate surrogate country to use in 

this investigation for the following 

reasons: (1) India is at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the PRC; (2) Indian 

manufacturers produce comparable 

merchandise and are significant 

producers of frozen and canned 

warmwater shrimp; (3) India provides 

the best opportunity to use appropriate, 

publicly available data to value the 

factors of production. See Preliminary 

Determination, 69 FR at 42678; and see 

Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen to 

James Doyle: Antidumping Duty 

Investigation on Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China, dated 

March 10, 2004. We received no 

comments from interested parties 

concerning our selection of India as the 

surrogate country. For the final 

determination we have determined to 

continue to use India as the surrogate 

country and, accordingly, have 

calculated normal value using Indian 

prices to value the respondents’ factors 

of production, when available and 

appropriate. We have obtained and 

relied upon publicly available 

information wherever possible. For a 

detailed description of the surrogate 

values that have changed as a result of 

comments the Department has received, 

see Final Surrogate Value Memorandum

(November 29, 2004).

Separate Rates 

In the Preliminary Determination and 

the Amended Preliminary 

Determination the Department found 

that several companies which provided 

responses to Section A of the 

antidumping questionnaire were eligible 

for a rate separate from the PRC-wide 

rate. For the final determination, we 

have determined that additional 

companies have qualified for separaterate status. See Final Separate Rates 

Memorandum. For a complete listing of 

all the companies that received a 

separate rate, see the ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins’’ section below. 

As discussed below, the Department 

applied adverse facts available with 

respect to Meizhou, because we have 

determined that Meizhou did not 

provide verifiable information to 

support its request for a separate rate. 

Accordingly, Meizhou has not overcome 

the presumption that it is part of the 

PRC-wide entity and its entries will be 

subject to the PRC-wide rate. 

The margin we calculated in the 

Preliminary Determination for the 

companies receiving a separate rate was 

49.09 percent. Because the rates of the 

selected Mandatory Respondents have 

changed since the Preliminary 

Determination and the Amended 

Preliminary Determination, we have 

recalculated the rate for Section A 

Respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate. The rate is 55.23 percent. 

See Memorandum to the File from John 

D. A. LaRose, Calculation of Section A 

Rates, dated November 29, 2004. 

Critical Circumstances 

For this final determination there 

have been no changes to the preliminary 

affirmative critical circumstances 

determinations. As such, the 

Department continues to find that 

critical circumstances exist for the 

following entities: Allied, Yelin, all the 

Section A Respondents granted a 

separate rate, and the PRC-wide entity. 

Additionally, for this final 

determination we continue to find that 

critical circumstances do not exist with 

regard to imports of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

PRC for Zhanjiang Guolian or Red 

Garden. For further details regarding the 

Department’s critical circumstances 

analysis from the Preliminary 

71002 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 

Determination, please see the Memo 

from Edward C. Yang, Office Director to 

Jeffrey A. May, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

Regarding the Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China—Partial 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances, dated July 2, 

2004. 

On October 6, 2004, Lingyang 

submitted three years of its companyspecific export data for the Department’s 

critical circumstances analysis. 

However, because the Department has 

determined that Lingyang is not entitled 

to a separate rate and continues to be 

part of the PRC-wide entity, we have not 

considered this data for the final 

determination. See Final Determination 

for Sales at Less than Fair Value 

Investigation of Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China: Section A 

Respondents Issues Memorandum from 

Julia Hancock, Case Analyst through 

James C. Doyle, Edward C. Yang (‘‘Final 

Section A Respondent Memo’’), dated 

November 29, 2004 at Attachment II. 

The PRC-Wide Rate 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a non market-economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country are subject to government 

control and because only the companies 

listed under the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below have overcome 

that presumption, we are applying a 

single antidumping rate—the PRC-wide 

rate—to all other exporters of subject 

merchandise from the PRC. Such 

companies did not demonstrate 

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

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from 

the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 

25706 (May 3, 2000). The PRC-wide rate 

applies to all entries of subject 

merchandise except for entries from the 

respondents which are listed in the 

‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section 

below (except as noted). The 

information used to calculate this PRCwide rate was corroborated 

independently with some small changes 

in accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act. See Memorandum to the File from 

Alex Villanueva, Senior Case Analyst 

through James C. Doyle, Program 

Manager and Edward C. Yang, Director, 

NME Unit, Preliminary Determination in 

the Investigation of Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China, 

Corroboration Memorandum

(‘‘Corroboration Memo’’), (July 2, 2004). 

Facts Available 

Red Garden’s Partial Adverse Facts 

Available 

For the final determination, the 

Department is applying partial facts 

available to Red Garden regarding a 

portion of its sales produced by 

Meizhou because it failed to provide the 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) data that 

the Department had requested, in 

accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of 

the Act. 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested, subject to subsections 

782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; (C) 

significantly impedes a determination 

under the antidumping statute; or (D) 

provides such information but the 

information cannot be verified, the 

Department shall, subject to subsection 

782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination.

In its August 5, 2004 submission and 

subsequent rebuttal brief, Red Garden 

chronicled its various attempts to obtain 

FOP information from Meizhou 

pertaining to its purchases of subject 

merchandise during the POI. However, 

at the Department’s verification of 

Meizhou, the current ownership 

provided an inconsistent account of Red 

Garden’s attempt to obtain this 

information from what Red Garden had 

previously reported to the Department. 

See Red Garden’s August 5, 2004 

Supplemental Questionnaire Response

at Exhibit 1. On the basis of these 

inconsistent accounts of Red Garden’s 

efforts, we find that Red Garden 

withheld information that had been 

requested by the Department and 

provided unverifiable information. 

Furthermore, in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department found that Red Garden 

failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability to comply with the Department’s 

request for information, and, therefore, 

finds an adverse inference is warranted 

in determining the facts otherwise 

available. 

During the time period that Meizhou 

completed its own responses, company 

officials had access to the records 

needed by Red Garden. See 

Memorandum from John D.A. LaRose to 

Alex Villanueva, Acting Program 

Manager, regarding Verification of Sales 

and Factors of Production for Meizhou 

Aquatic Shantou Ocean Freezing 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Canned and Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China, (September 22, 2004). Thus, we 

find that Red Garden, despite its 

information to the contrary, by not 

contacting current ownership of 

Meizhou, or the ownership that was in 

place when Red Garden was responding 

to the Department’s questionnaires, did 

not act to the best of its ability to obtain 

the FOP information from Meizhou. The 

Department determines that partial 

adverse facts is warranted for the 

portion of Red Garden’s sales produced 

by Meizhou. Therefore, we are applying 

the PRC-wide rate to all of these sales 

by Red Garden during the POI. 

Yelin’s Partial Facts Available 

For the final determination, the 

Department is applying partial facts 

available for Yelin’s purchases of STPP 

used in the processing stage of subject 

merchandise production in accordance 

with sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2)(D) 

of the Act. 

When calculating its STPP usage, 

Yelin incorrectly allocated STPP usage 

over the shrimp input factor. See 

Memorandum from John D.A. LaRose to 

Alex Villanueva, Acting Program 

Manager, regarding Verification of Sales 

and Factors of Production for Yelin 

Enterprise Co. Hong Kong, Antidumping 

Duty Investigation of Certain Canned 

and Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘Yelin 

Verification Report’’), dated October 12, 

2004 at 22. It is inaccurate for Yelin to 

allocate this consumption over the 

shrimp input because it misrepresents 

the actual usage of STPP. In order for 

the Department to calculate the most 

accurate dumping margin for Yelin, 

normal value should be calculated using 

all of Yelin’s FOPs during the POI. 

Because the STPP usage was not 

reported correctly, the reported usage by 

Yelin was not verifiable. At verification, 

the Department further explored the 

issue by requesting Yelin’s purchase 

records for STPP. Yelin’s audited 

financial records did not reflect STPP 

purchases. Id. Therefore, the 

Department determines that Yelin was 

unable to support its reported STPP 

usage rates. 

In accordance with section 

776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the Department 

may determine that facts available apply 

due to the Department’s inability to 

verify information provided by an 

interested party. Because Yelin was 

unable to support its purchases and 

usage of STPP, the Department is 

applying partial facts available for 

Yelin’s factor usage for STPP. As facts 

available, the Department has calculated 

the factor usage ratio for STPP by taking 

the highest monthly volume figure of 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 71003

STPP, multiplying that figure by six (for 

the six months in the POI) and dividing 

that by production of total finished 

product during the POI. 

In addition, the Department is 

applying partial facts available 

regarding Yelin’s sales of its by-product 

offset to normal value in the final 

determination. The Department at 

verification determined that Yelin’s 

audited financial records did not reflect 

any by-product sales. See Yelin 

Verification Report at 22. In order for 

the Department to properly offset 

Yelin’s normal value for its by-products 

sales, the Department would need 

evidence that Yelin actually sold the byproducts during the POI. At verification, 

Yelin provided unofficial information 

regarding its by-product sales which 

could not be reconciled to its audited 

financial statements. In accordance with 

section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, because 

the Department was unable to verify 

information provided by Yelin, the 

Department is not making an adjustment 

to normal value for by-product sales. 

Zhanjiang Guolian’s Partial Facts 

Available 

For the final determination, the 

Department is applying partial facts 

available regarding Zhanjiang Guolian’s 

unreported consumption of diesel fuel. 

See Memorandum from Irene Gorelik to 

Alex Villanueva, Acting Program 

Manager, regarding Verification of Sales 

and Factors of Production for Zhanjiang 

Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Canned and Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China, dated September 24, 2004. The 

Department learned during verification 

that this particular factor is used at an 

integral stage of Zhanjiang Guolian’s 

farming and processing operations. 

Therefore, the Department finds that 

diesel fuel is a significant expense 

related to transport of the primary input 

and must be included in the FOP 

database. In accordance with section 

776(a)(1) of the Act, the Department 

may use the facts available if necessary 

information is not available on the 

record. 

In its case brief submitted on October 

19, 2004, Zhanjiang Guolian stated that 

diesel fuel was booked in the company’s 

financial records as overhead. However, 

the Department found that the diesel 

fuel used by Zhanjiang Guolian is a 

significant material input for the 

production of subject merchandise. 

Zhanjiang Guolian did not report diesel 

fuel as a factor of production in the 

questionnaire dated February 25, 2004. 

Thus, since diesel fuel as an FOP is not 

on the record, the Department must 

make a determination using the facts 

available with regard to Zhanjiang 

Guolian’s consumption of diesel fuel 

during the POI. 

As facts available, the Department is 

using information from Zhanjiang 

Guolian obtained at verification to 

calculate the value for diesel fuel 

consumption. See Preliminary Factor 

Valuation Memo at Exhibit 6 and 

Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office 

Director, from John D.A. LaRose, Case 

Analyst, through Alex Villanueva, 

Acting Program Manager, Regarding 

Selection of Surrogate Factor Values for 

Allied Pacific, Yelin, Zhanjiang 

Guolian, and Red Garden (‘‘Final Factor 

Valuation Memorandum’’). 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our findings at verification, 

additional information placed on the 

record of this investigation, and analysis 

of comments received, we have made 

adjustments to the calculation 

methodology for the final dumping 

margins in this proceeding. For 

discussion of the company-specific 

changes made since the preliminary 

determination to the final margin 

programs, see Final Analysis Memo for 

Allied, Final Analysis Memo for Red 

Garden, Final Analysis Memo for Yelin, 

and Final Analysis Memo for Zhangjian 

Guolian.

Margins for Cooperative Exporters Not 

Selected 

For those exporters who responded to 

Section A of the Department’s 

antidumping questionnaire, established 

their claim for a separate rate, and had 

sales of the merchandise under 

investigation, but were not selected as 

Mandatory Respondents in this 

investigation, the Department has 

calculated a weighted-average margin 

based on the rates calculated for those 

exporters that were selected to respond 

in this investigation, excluding any rates 

that are zero, de minimis or based 

entirely on adverse facts available. 

Companies receiving this rate are 

identified by name in the ‘‘Suspension 

of Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

See Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Honey 

from the People’s Republic of China, 64 

FR 24101 (May 11, 2001). For further 

discussion, see the Preliminary 

Determination. 

Surrogate Values 

The Department made changes to the 

surrogate values used to calculate the 

normal value from the Preliminary 

Determination. For a complete 

discussion of the surrogate values, see 

Issues and Decisions Memorandum at 

Comments 1, 2, 7 (B), and 9 (D) and (F). 

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted-average margins 

exist for the POI:

Company 

Weighted-average margin (percent) 

Allied Pacific Group (‘‘Allied’’) ........................................................................................................................................................... 84.93 

Yelin Enterprise Co Hong Kong (‘‘Yelin’’) ........................................................................................................................................ 82.27 

Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (‘‘Red Garden’’) .............................................................................................................. 27.89 

Zhanjiang Guolian Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (‘‘Zhanjiang Guolian’’) ............................................................................................. .07 

(de minimis) 

PRC Wide Rate ................................................................................................................................................................................ 112.81 

CERTAIN FROZEN AND CANNED WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM PRC SECTION A RESPONDENTS

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................. 55.23 

Beihai Zhengwu Industry Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd. (Shantou Qiaofeng (Group) Co., Ltd.) (Shantou/Chaoyang Qiaofeng) ................................... 55.23 

71004 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 

CERTAIN FROZEN AND CANNED WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM PRC SECTION A RESPONDENTS—Continued

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Chenghai Nichi Lan Food Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Dalian Ftz Sea-Rich International Trading Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing Plants ........................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Fuqing Dongwei Aquatic Products Industry Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Gallant Ocean (Liangjiang) Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food Allocation Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd./Hainan Brich Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. .............................................................................. 55.23 

Kaifeng Ocean Sky Industry Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................. 55.23 

Leizhou Zhulian Frozen Food Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Pingyang Xinye Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................ 55.23 

Savvy Seafood Inc. .............................................................................................................................................................................. 55.23 

Shanghai Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................. 55.23 

Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Shantou Longfeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.) .......................................................................... 55.23 

Shantou Wanya Food Factory Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................................................................. 55.23 

Shantou Jinyuan District Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory .................................................................................................................. 55.23 

Shantou Ocean Freezing Industry and Trade General Corporation ................................................................................................... 55.23 

Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business Co., Ltd. ............................................................................................................................. 55.23 

Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company ............................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Shantou Freezing Aquatic Product Food Stuffs Co. ........................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Shantou Jinhang Aquatic Industry Co., Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................ 55.23 

Xuwen Hailang Breeding Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Yantai Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd. ....................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Zhangjiang Newpro Food Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Zhangjiang Bobogo Ocean Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Zhanjiang Runhai Foods Co., Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Zhanjiang Go-Harvest Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. .............................................................................................................................. 55.23 

Zhanjiang Universal Seafood Corp. .................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology Co., Ltd. ......................................................................................... 55.23 

Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................. 55.23 

Zhoushan Cereals Oils and Foodstuffs Import and Export Co., Ltd. .................................................................................................. 55.23 

Zhoushan Lizhou Fishery Co., Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................................... 55.23 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of subject 

merchandise from Red Garden, that are 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the July 16, 

2004, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination. However, 

with respect to Allied, Yelin, all the 

Section A Respondents granted a 

separate rate, and all other PRC 

exporters, the Department will continue 

to direct CBP to suspend liquidation of 

all entries of certain frozen and canned 

warmwater shrimp from the PRC that 

are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, on or after 90 days before 

the July 16, 2004, the date of publication 

of the Preliminary Determination. With 

respect to Zhanjiang Guolian, the 

Department will not direct the CBP 

suspend liquidation of any entries of 

certain frozen and canned warmwater 

shrimp from the PRC as described in the 

‘‘Scope of Investigation’’ section, that 

are entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Department 

does not require any cash deposit or 

posting of a bond for Zhanjiang Guolian 

when the subject merchandise is 

produced and exported by Zhanjiang 

Guolian. These suspension of 

liquidation instructions will remain in 

effect until further notice. 

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b). 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

final determination of sales at LTFV. As 

our final determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, within 45 days the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 71005

8Shantou Jinyuan District Mingfeng QuickFrozen Factory.

9Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.

10Meizhou Aquatic Shantou Ocean Freezing.

11Sodium Tripolyphosphate.

1Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import 

Export Corporation (‘‘Camimex’’); Kim Anh Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Kim Anh’’); Minh Phu Seafood Corporation 

(‘‘Minh Phu’’); Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods 

Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’).

2Can Tho Animal Fisheries Product Processing 

Export Enterprise (‘‘Cafatex’’); Cai Doi Vam Seafood 

Import Export Company (‘‘Cadovimex’’); Sao Ta 

Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’); Viet Hai 

Seafood Company (‘‘Vietnam Fish-One’’); Kiengiang 

Seafood Import Export Company (‘‘Kisimex’’); Soc 

Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export 

Company (‘‘Stapimex’’); Coastal Fisheries 

Development Corporation (‘‘Cofidec’’); Phuong Nam 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’); Cuu Long Seaproducts 

Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’); Minh Hai Export 

Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company 

(‘‘Jostoco’’); Can Tho Agriculture and Animal 

Products Import Export Company (‘‘Cataco’’); Nha 

Trang Fisheries Co. (‘‘Nha Trang’’); Nhatrang 

Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nhatrang Seafoods’’); Minh 

Hai Seaproducts Import and Export Corporation 

(‘‘Seaprimex’’); Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading 

Corporation; Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Nhatrang Fisco’’); Danang Seaproducts 

Import Export Company (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’); 

C.P. Vietnam Livestock; UTXI Aquatic Products 

Processing Company (‘‘UTXI’’); Viet Nhan 

Company; Investment Commerce Fisheries 

Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’); Vinhloi Import Export 

Company (‘‘VIMEXCO’’); Bac Lieu Fisheries; Viet 

Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Viet Foods’’); Truc An Company 

(‘‘Truc An’’); Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing 

Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’); Hai 

Thuan Company (‘‘Hai Thuan’’); Phu Cuong 

Seafood Processing (‘‘Phu Cuong’’); Ngoc Sinh 

Company (‘‘Ngoc Sinh’’); Aquatic Product Trading 

Company (‘‘APT’’); Song Huong ASC Import-Export 

Company Ltd. (‘‘ASC’’); Hanoi Seaproducts Import 

Export Corp. (‘‘Seaprodex Hanoi’’); Pataya Food 

Industries (Vietnam) Ltd. (‘‘Pataya VN’’); and 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. (‘‘Amanda’’).

Dated: November 29, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix 

I. General Issues: 

Comment 1: Raw Shrimp Surrogate Value 

Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Labor 

Comment 3: Combination Rates 

Comment 4: Weight Averaging the 

Dumping Margins 

Comment 5: Department’s Offset 

Methodology 

II. Company-Specific Issues 

Comment 6: Red Garden 

A. Weighting Factor Between Mingfeng 8

and Long Feng 9

B. Partial Adverse Facts Available for Sales 

Made using Meizhou 10

C. Red Garden’s Deposit Rate 

Comment 7: Yelin & Allied Pacific 

A. Critical Circumstances 

B. Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 8: Yelin 

A. Facts Available for Water, Electricity, 

Diesel Fuel and Heavy Oil 

B. Facts Available for Labor 

C. Partial Facts Available for STPP 11

D. Denial of By-Products Offset 

E. Rejected Submissions 

Comment 9: Zhanjiang Guolian 

A. Minor Corrections 

B. Ice and Diesel Fuel 

C. Land Lease 

D. Surrogate Value for Shrimp Feed 

E. Valuation of Integrated Factors of 

Production 

F. Surrogate Financial Ratios

[FR Doc. 04–26976 Filed 12–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On July 16, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), negative 

preliminary determination of critical 

circumstances, and postponement of the 

final determination in the antidumping 

investigation of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’). On September 1, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published an 

amended preliminary determination of 

sales at LTFV. The period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’) is April 1, 2003, 

through September 30, 2003. 

The investigation covers four shrimp 

processors which are Mandatory 

Respondents 1 and 34 Section A 

Respondents.2 We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

determination and amended 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV. Based on our analysis of the 

comments we received, we have made 

changes to our calculations for the four 

Mandatory Respondents.

DATES: Effective Date: December 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex 

Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

9, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3208. 

Final Determination 

We determine that certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Vietnam is being, or is likely to be, sold 

in the United States at LTFV as 

provided in section 735 of Tariff Act of 

1930, as Amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section of this notice. 

Case History 

The Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on July 16, 2004. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672 (July 16, 2004) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). On September 1, 2004, 

the Department published an amended 

preliminary determination. See Notice 

of Amended Preliminary Antidumping 

Duty Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

53411 (September 1, 2004) (‘‘Amended 

Preliminary Determination’’). 

The Department conducted 

verification of the Mandatory 

Respondents and certain Section A 

Respondents’ data in Vietnam. See the 

‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination and 

Amended Preliminary Determination. 

We received comments from the Ad Hoc 

Shrimp Trade Action Committee, 

Versaggi Shrimp Corporation and Indian 

Ridge Shrimp Company, hereinafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘Petitioners,’’

the Respondents and other interested 

parties to this investigation. 

On October 20, 2004, parties 

submitted case briefs. On October 29, 

2004, parties submitted rebuttal briefs. 

Since the Preliminary Determination, 

the following events have occurred: 

Company Specific Comments 

On July 16, 2004, the Department 

received the sales reconciliation from 

Camimex, Kim Anh, Seaprodex Minh 

Hai and Minh Phu. 

On July 21, 2004, the Department 

received comments from the 

Respondents on the Department’s 

Customs instructions.

On July 26, 2004, the Department sent 

supplemental questionnaires to 

Seaprodex Minh Hai and Camimex. On 

July 27, 2004 the Department sent 

supplemental questionnaires to Kim 

Anh and Minh Phu. On July 30, 2004 

the Department received a request for an 

extension to respond to the 

supplemental questionnaires from 

Camimex, Kim Anh and Seaprodex 

Minh Hai and served the verification 

schedule on all interested parties. On


Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 71005

8Shantou Jinyuan District Mingfeng QuickFrozen Factory.

9Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.

10Meizhou Aquatic Shantou Ocean Freezing.

11Sodium Tripolyphosphate.

1Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import 

Export Corporation (‘‘Camimex’’); Kim Anh Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Kim Anh’’); Minh Phu Seafood Corporation 

(‘‘Minh Phu’’); Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods 

Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’).

2Can Tho Animal Fisheries Product Processing 

Export Enterprise (‘‘Cafatex’’); Cai Doi Vam Seafood 

Import Export Company (‘‘Cadovimex’’); Sao Ta 

Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’); Viet Hai 

Seafood Company (‘‘Vietnam Fish-One’’); Kiengiang 

Seafood Import Export Company (‘‘Kisimex’’); Soc 

Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export 

Company (‘‘Stapimex’’); Coastal Fisheries 

Development Corporation (‘‘Cofidec’’); Phuong Nam 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’); Cuu Long Seaproducts 

Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’); Minh Hai Export 

Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company 

(‘‘Jostoco’’); Can Tho Agriculture and Animal 

Products Import Export Company (‘‘Cataco’’); Nha 

Trang Fisheries Co. (‘‘Nha Trang’’); Nhatrang 

Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nhatrang Seafoods’’); Minh 

Hai Seaproducts Import and Export Corporation 

(‘‘Seaprimex’’); Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading 

Corporation; Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Nhatrang Fisco’’); Danang Seaproducts 

Import Export Company (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’); 

C.P. Vietnam Livestock; UTXI Aquatic Products 

Processing Company (‘‘UTXI’’); Viet Nhan 

Company; Investment Commerce Fisheries 

Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’); Vinhloi Import Export 

Company (‘‘VIMEXCO’’); Bac Lieu Fisheries; Viet 

Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Viet Foods’’); Truc An Company 

(‘‘Truc An’’); Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing 

Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’); Hai 

Thuan Company (‘‘Hai Thuan’’); Phu Cuong 

Seafood Processing (‘‘Phu Cuong’’); Ngoc Sinh 

Company (‘‘Ngoc Sinh’’); Aquatic Product Trading 

Company (‘‘APT’’); Song Huong ASC Import-Export 

Company Ltd. (‘‘ASC’’); Hanoi Seaproducts Import 

Export Corp. (‘‘Seaprodex Hanoi’’); Pataya Food 

Industries (Vietnam) Ltd. (‘‘Pataya VN’’); and 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. (‘‘Amanda’’).

Dated: November 29, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix 

I. General Issues: 

Comment 1: Raw Shrimp Surrogate Value 

Comment 2: Surrogate Value for Labor 

Comment 3: Combination Rates 

Comment 4: Weight Averaging the 

Dumping Margins 

Comment 5: Department’s Offset 

Methodology 

II. Company-Specific Issues 

Comment 6: Red Garden 

A. Weighting Factor Between Mingfeng 8

and Long Feng 9

B. Partial Adverse Facts Available for Sales 

Made using Meizhou 10

C. Red Garden’s Deposit Rate 

Comment 7: Yelin & Allied Pacific 

A. Critical Circumstances 

B. Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 8: Yelin 

A. Facts Available for Water, Electricity, 

Diesel Fuel and Heavy Oil 

B. Facts Available for Labor 

C. Partial Facts Available for STPP 11

D. Denial of By-Products Offset 

E. Rejected Submissions 

Comment 9: Zhanjiang Guolian 

A. Minor Corrections 

B. Ice and Diesel Fuel 

C. Land Lease 

D. Surrogate Value for Shrimp Feed 

E. Valuation of Integrated Factors of 

Production 

F. Surrogate Financial Ratios

[FR Doc. 04–26976 Filed 12–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DR–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On July 16, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value (‘‘LTFV’’), negative 

preliminary determination of critical 

circumstances, and postponement of the 

final determination in the antidumping 

investigation of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’). On September 1, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published an 

amended preliminary determination of 

sales at LTFV. The period of 

investigation (‘‘POI’’) is April 1, 2003, 

through September 30, 2003. 

The investigation covers four shrimp 

processors which are Mandatory 

Respondents 1 and 34 Section A 

Respondents.2 We invited interested 

parties to comment on our preliminary 

determination and amended 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV. Based on our analysis of the 

comments we received, we have made 

changes to our calculations for the four 

Mandatory Respondents.

DATES: Effective Date: December 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex 

Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

9, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3208. 

Final Determination 

We determine that certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Vietnam is being, or is likely to be, sold 

in the United States at LTFV as 

provided in section 735 of Tariff Act of 

1930, as Amended (‘‘the Act’’). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section of this notice. 

Case History 

The Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

LTFV on July 16, 2004. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672 (July 16, 2004) (‘‘Preliminary 

Determination’’). On September 1, 2004, 

the Department published an amended 

preliminary determination. See Notice 

of Amended Preliminary Antidumping 

Duty Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

53411 (September 1, 2004) (‘‘Amended 

Preliminary Determination’’). 

The Department conducted 

verification of the Mandatory 

Respondents and certain Section A 

Respondents’ data in Vietnam. See the 

‘‘Verification’’ section below for 

additional information. 

We invited parties to comment on the 

Preliminary Determination and 

Amended Preliminary Determination. 

We received comments from the Ad Hoc 

Shrimp Trade Action Committee, 

Versaggi Shrimp Corporation and Indian 

Ridge Shrimp Company, hereinafter 

referred to collectively as ‘‘Petitioners,’’

the Respondents and other interested 

parties to this investigation. 

On October 20, 2004, parties 

submitted case briefs. On October 29, 

2004, parties submitted rebuttal briefs. 

Since the Preliminary Determination, 

the following events have occurred: 

Company Specific Comments 

On July 16, 2004, the Department 

received the sales reconciliation from 

Camimex, Kim Anh, Seaprodex Minh 

Hai and Minh Phu. 

On July 21, 2004, the Department 

received comments from the 

Respondents on the Department’s 

Customs instructions.

On July 26, 2004, the Department sent 

supplemental questionnaires to 

Seaprodex Minh Hai and Camimex. On 

July 27, 2004 the Department sent 

supplemental questionnaires to Kim 

Anh and Minh Phu. On July 30, 2004 

the Department received a request for an 

extension to respond to the 

supplemental questionnaires from 

Camimex, Kim Anh and Seaprodex 

Minh Hai and served the verification 

schedule on all interested parties. On 

71006 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 

August 2, 2004 the Department also 

granted an extension to Camimex, Kim 

Anh and Seaprodex Minh Hai for 

responding to the Department’s July 26, 

2004 supplemental questionnaires. On 

August 3, 2004 the Department received 

Minh Phu’s supplemental questionnaire 

response. 

On August 3, 2004, the Department 

received the Petitioners’ rebuttal to the 

Respondents’ July 21, 2004 comments 

regarding errors in the Department’s 

Customs instructions. 

On August 5, 2004, the Department 

granted an extension to Cafatex for 

submitting reconciliation information. 

On August 11, 2004, the Department 

received Cafatex’s sales reconciliation 

information. 

On August 10, 2004 the Department 

sent Seaprodex Minh Hai supplemental 

questionnaire. 

On August 12, 2004, the Department 

received Seaprodex Minh Hai’s 

supplemental questionnaire response, 

Kim Anh’s 4th supplemental 

questionnaire response, and Camimex’s 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On August 18, 2004, the Department 

sent a verification outline to Camimex 

and Seaprodex Minh Hai. On August 18, 

2004 Camimex submitted preverification corrections and the 

Department sent verification agendas to 

Kim Anh, Minh Phu and Cafatex. The 

Department received Kim Anh’s preverification corrections. On August 23, 

2004 the Department received a request 

for an extension for serving verification 

exhibits Kim Anh, Cafatex and 

Seaprodex Minh Hai. On August 23, 

2004 the Department amended the 

verification outline for Kim Anh. 

On August 24, 2004, an analyst 

submitted an analysis of ministerial 

errors for both the Section A 

respondents and the mandatory 

respondents. 

On August 31, 2004, the Department 

received Cafatex’s pre-verification 

corrections. On September 7, 2004 the 

Department received Seaprodex Minh 

Hai’s pre-verification corrections. 

On September 8, 2004, the 

Department received additional 

surrogate value data from the 

Respondents. 

On September 14, 2004, the 

Department received both Camimex and 

Minh Phu’s pre-verification corrections. 

On September 17, 2004 the 

Department set a deadline for rebuttal 

brief comments of September 20, 2004. 

On September 20, 2004 the Department 

received a request for an extension of 

the briefing schedule from the 

Petitioners as well as their submission 

of factual information. 

On September 22, 2004 the 

Department received a letter from VSC 

opposing the Petitioner’s request for an 

expanded briefing schedule. On 

September 23, 2004 the Department 

received Red Chamber’s comments 

regarding alleged clerical errors in the 

Preliminary Determination regarding 

two Section A Respondents. 

On September 27, 2004, an analyst 

wrote a memo to the file regarding the 

termination of Kim Anh’s verification. 

On October 4, 2004, the Department 

received a letter from Red Chamber 

removing their submission from the 

record. 

On October 6, 2004, verification 

reports for Seaprodex Minh Hai and 

Cafatex were completed. On October 12, 

2004 the verification report for Minh 

Phu was completed. 

On October 13, 2004, the deadline for 

case briefs and rebuttal briefs was set as 

October 20, 2004 for case briefs and 

October 25, 2004 for rebuttal briefs. On 

October 15, 2004 the Department 

received a request for an extension for 

submitting rebuttal briefs from the 

Petitioners. 

On October 20, 2004, the Department 

received case briefs from VSC, XianNing, Eastern Fish/LJS, Red Chamber, 

and the Petitioners. 

On October 25, 2004, the Department 

received a rebuttal brief from Eastern 

Fish Company. On October 26, 2004 the 

Department received a rebuttal brief 

from Xian-Ning. On October 29, 2004 

the Department received rebuttal briefs 

from the Petitioners and VSC. 

On November 8, 2004, the Department 

sent a letter to Seaprodex Minh Hai, 

Minh Phu and Camimex requesting that 

they resubmit their sales and FOP 

databases. On November 8, 2004 the 

Department sent a clarification letter to 

Camimex concerning the Department’s 

November 8, 2004 letter requesting the 

resubmission of their sales and FOP 

databases. 

Hearing 

On August 3, 2004, the Department 

received a request for a hearing from the 

Respondents on the issues addressed in 

their case briefs. 

On August 13, 2004, the Department 

received a request for a scope hearing 

from the American Breaded Shrimp 

Processors Association (‘‘ABSPA’’). On 

August 16, 2004 the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

in hearings from the Petitioners. 

On October 20, 2004, the Department 

received a notice of intent to participate 

in the hearing from Eastern Fish 

Company. The Department sent a letter 

to all interested parties concerning a 

request for a hearing. 

On November 2, 2004, the Department 

received a letter from ABSPA 

concerning the hearing on scope issues. 

Also on November 2, 2004 the 

Department sent a letter to all interested 

parties concerning the public hearing. 

On November 4, 2004 the Department 

sent a letter to all interested parties 

regarding presenters at the public 

hearing. On November 4, 2004 the 

Department also sent a letter to ABSPA 

notifying them that because they did not 

submit any case or rebuttal briefs on the 

scope issues and that they could not 

make any presentations in the scope 

hearing. 

On November 5, 2004, the Department 

held a public hearing on issues 

concerning financial ratios, surrogate 

values, and the Mandatory Respondents. 

On November 8, 2004, the Department 

postponed the public scope hearing. On 

November 23, 2004, the Department 

held its scope hearing. 

Separate Rates 

On August 18, 2004, the Department 

received additional information 

regarding separate rate status from: 

Phuong Nam, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam 

Ranh Seafoods, VIMEXCO, Ngoc Sinh, 

Nha Trang, UTXI, Truc An, Kisimex, 

Vietnam Fish-One, Hai Thuan, and 

Incomfish. On August 20, 2004 the 

Department received additional 

information regarding ASC, Viet Foods, 

APT, Cofidec, and Phu Cuong’s requests 

for separate rate status. 

Scope Comments by Interested Parties 

On July 16, 2004, the Department 

received a scope exclusion request on 

behalf of Xian-Ning Seafood Co. Ltd., 

asking the Department to determine 

whether shrimp scampi is outside the 

scope of the antidumping investigation. 

On August 2, 2004 the Department 

received scope comments regarding 

dusted shrimp from Eastern Fish 

Company. On August 2, 2004 the 

Department received scope comments 

regarding dusted shrimp and battered 

shrimp from the Petitioners. On August 

12, 2004 the Department received 

Eastern Fish Company’s reply to the 

Petitioner’s August 2, 2004 scope 

comments. On November 8, 2004 the 

Department placed Lee Kum Kee’s 

request to determine whether shrimp 

sauce is outside the scope of this 

investigation on the record of this 

investigation. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The issue of separate rates raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 

this investigation are addressed in the 

Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, 

Case Analyst through Alex Villanueva, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 71007

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

includes the telson and the uropods.

Program Manager, to James Doyle, 

Office Director, Antidumping Duty 

Investigation of Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Determination Separate Rates 

Memorandum for Section A 

Respondents (‘‘Section A Memo’’), dated 

November 29, 2004. The various scope 

issues are discussed in the ‘‘Scope 

Comments’’ section of this notice. All 

other issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties in this 

investigation are addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum, dated 

November 29, 2004, which is hereby 

adopted by this notice (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’). A list of the issues 

which parties raised and to which we 

respond in the Decision Memorandum

is attached to this notice as an 

Appendix. The Decision Memorandum

is a public document and is on file in 

the Central Records Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main 

Commerce Building, Room B–099, and 

is accessible on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the memorandum 

are identical in content.

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

On November 8, 2002, the Department 

determined under section 771(18)(A) of 

the Act, after analyzing comments from 

interested parties, that based on the 

preponderance of evidence on the 

record related to economic reforms in 

Vietnam to date, analyzed as required 

under section 771(18)(B) of the Act, that 

Vietnam should be treated as a nonmarket economy country under the U.S. 

antidumping law, effective July 1, 2001. 

See Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Affirmative Preliminary Determination 

of Critical Circumstances and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

4986, 4990 (January 31, 2003). 

A designation as a non-market 

economy remains in effect until it is 

revoked by the Department (see section 

771(18)(C) of the Act). 

Scope Comments 

In the Preliminary Determination, the 

Department solicited comments from 

interested parties which would 

enumerate and describe a clear, 

administrable definition of dusted 

shrimp for the final determination. As 

noted above, we received comments on 

dusted and battered shrimp for the final 

determination. On November 29, 2004, 

the Department made a scope 

determination with respect to dusted 

shrimp and battered shrimp. See 

Memorandum from Edward C. Yang, 

Vietnam/NME Unit Coordinator, Import 

Administration to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Antidumping 

Investigation on Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, Thailand, the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Scope 

Clarification on Dusted Shrimp and 

Battered Shrimp (‘‘Dusted/Battered 

Scope Memo2’’), dated November 29, 

2004. Based on the information 

presented by interested parties, the 

Department determines that (1) certain 

dusted shrimp, produced from fresh (or 

thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 

to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or 

wheat flour of at least 95 percent purity 

has been applied; so that the entire 

surface of the shrimp flesh is thoroughly 

and evenly coated with the flour; and 

the non-shrimp content of the end 

product constitutes between 4 to 10 

percent of the product’s total weight 

after being dusted, but prior to being 

frozen; and is subjected to individually 

quick frozen freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer; and (2) 

battered shrimp, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting, coated with a wet viscous layer 

containing egg and/or milk, and parfried are excluded from the scope of this 

investigation. See Dusted/Battered 

Scope Memo at 28. 

On November 29, 2004, the 

Department made scope determinations 

with respect to Lee Kum Kee’s shrimp 

sauce. See Memorandum from Edward 

C. Yang, Vietnam/NME Unit 

Coordinator, Import Administration to 

Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration Antidumping 

Investigation on Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, Thailand, the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Scope 

Clarification on Lee Kum Kee’s Shrimp 

Sauce (‘‘Shrimp Sauce Scope Memo’’), 

dated November 29, 2004. Based on the 

information presented by interested 

parties, the Department determines that 

Lee Kum Kee’s shrimp sauce is 

excluded from the scope of this 

investigation. See Shrimp Sauce Scope 

Memo at 8. 

Additionally, on November 29, 2004, 

the Department made scope 

determinations with respect to shrimp 

scampi. See Memorandum from Edward 

C. Yang, Vietnam/NME Unit 

Coordinator, Import Administration to 

Barbara E. Tillman, Acting Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration Antidumping 

Investigation on Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, Thailand, the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Scope 

Clarification on Shrimp Scampi

(‘‘Shrimp Scampi Scope Memo’’), dated 

November 29, 2004. Based on the 

information presented by interested 

parties, the Department determines that 

shrimp scampi is included in the scope 

of this investigation. See Shrimp 

Scampi Scope Memo at 8. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes certain warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether frozen or canned, 

wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farmraised (produced by aquaculture), headon or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tailon or tail-off,3 deveined or not 

deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise 

processed in frozen or canned form.

The frozen or canned warmwater 

shrimp and prawn products included in 

the scope of the investigations, 

regardless of definitions in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

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

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through either 

freezing or canning 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 

investigation. 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 

investigation. 

71008 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 

4 Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product that 

(1) 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) So that the entire surface of 

the shrimp flesh is thoroughly and evenly coated 

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

the end product constitutes between 4 to 10 percent 

of the product’s total weight after being dusted, but 

prior to being frozen; and (5) Is subjected to IQF 

freezing immediately after application of the 

dusting layer. See Memorandum from Edward C. 

Yang, NME Unit Coordinator, Import 

Administration to Barbara E. Tillman, Acting 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration Antidumping Investigation on 

Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

from Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Scope Clarification on Dusted Shrimp and 

Battered Shrimp (‘‘Dusted/Battered Scope 

Memo2’’), dated November 29, 2004.

5Battered 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.

Excluded from the scope are (1) 

breaded shrimp and prawns 

(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 

(0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 

shrimp and prawns in prepared meals 

(1605.20.05.10); and (5) dried shrimp 

and prawns. 

The products covered by this 

investigation are currently classified 

under the following HTSUS subheading: 

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, 1605.20.10.30, and 

1605.20.10.40. These HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written descriptions of the scope of 

this investigation is dispositive. 

The Department has issued nine 

decisions regarding the scope of the 

merchandise covered by this 

investigation: (1) On May 21, 2004, the 

Department declined to expand the 

scope of this investigation to include 

fresh (never frozen) shrimp; (2) on July 

2, 2004, pursuant to a request from 

Ocean Duke, the Department found that 

its ‘‘Seafood Mix’’ is excluded from the 

scope of this investigation; (3) on July 2, 

2004, the Department found that salad 

shrimp, sold in counts of 250 pieces or 

higher, are included within the scope of 

the this investigation; (4) on July 2, 

2004, the Department found 

Macrobrachium Rosenbergii and organic 

shrimp included within the scope of 

this investigation; (5) on July 2, 2004, 

the Department found that peeled 

shrimp are included within the scope of 

this investigation; (6) on November 29, 

2004, the Department found that shrimp 

sauce is excluded from the scope of this 

investigation; (7) on November 29, 2004, 

the Department found Xian-Ning 

Seafood Co., Ltd.’s scampi shrimp 

included within the scope of these 

investigation; (8) on November 29, 2004, 

the Department found certain dusted 

shrimp 4 are outside the scope of this 

investigation; and (9) on November 29, 

2004, the Department found certain 

battered shrimp 5 are outside the scope 

of this investigation.

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the Mandatory 

Respondents and certain Section A 

Respondents for use in our final 

determination. See the Department’s 

verification reports on the record of this 

investigation in the CRU with respect to 

Cafatex, Camimex, Kim Anh, Minh Phu 

and Seaprodex Minh. For all verified 

companies, we used standard 

verification procedures, including 

examination of relevant accounting and 

production records, as well as original 

source documents provided by the 

Respondents.

Additionally, during verification, Kim 

Anh informed the Department that it 

had decided not to participate further in 

its verification. See Memorandum to the 

File from Nazak Nikaktahr, Verification 

of the Response of Kim Anh Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Kim Anh’’) with Regard to the Sales of 

Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 

Shrimp, dated September 24, 2004. 

Adverse Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, an 

interested party or any other person (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested, (B) fails to provide 

information within the deadlines 

established, or in the form or manner 

requested by the Department, subject to 

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

(C) significantly impedes a proceeding, 

or (D) provides information that cannot 

be verified as provided by section 782(i) 

of the Act. Section 776(b) of the Act 

provides further that the Department 

may use an adverse inference when a 

party has failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information. 

The Vietnam-Wide Rate 

Because we begin with the 

presumption that all companies within 

a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country are subject to government 

control and because only the companies 

listed under the ‘‘Final Determination 

Margins’’ section below have overcome 

that presumption, we are applying a 

single antidumping rate—the Vietnamwide rate—to all other exporters of 

subject merchandise from Vietnam. 

Such companies did not demonstrate 

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

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Synthetic Indigo from 

the People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 

25706 (May 3, 2000). The Vietnam-wide 

rate applies to all entries of subject 

merchandise except for entries from the 

Respondents which are listed in the 

‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section 

below (except as noted). The 

information used to calculate this 

Vietnam-wide rate was corroborated 

independently with some small changes 

in accordance with section 776(c) of the 

Act. See Memorandum to the File from 

Joe Welton, Case Analyst through James 

C. Doyle, Program Manager and Edward 

C. Yang, Director, NME Unit, 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Investigation of Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’): Corroboration of the 

Vietnam-Wide Adverse Facts-Available 

Rate (‘‘Corroboration Memo’’), dated 

July 2, 2004. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

Preliminary Determination and 

reaffirmed in the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 10, we 

continue to find that the use of adverse 

facts available for the Vietnam-wide rate 

is appropriate. As adverse facts 

available, the Vietnam-wide rate is not 

intended to be a reflection of the 

dumping margins applied as separate 

rates to the Respondent companies. 

Consistent with our Preliminary 

Determination and with previous cases 

in which the respondent is considered 

uncooperative, as adverse facts 

available, we have applied a rate of 

25.76 percent, a rate calculated in the 

initiation stage of the investigation from 

information provided in the petition (as 

adjusted by the Department). 

Kim Anh 

Pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the 

Act, we are applying facts otherwise 

available to Kim Anh because it refused 

to allow the Department to verify the 

information it had submitted during the 

course of this investigation. 

Furthermore, based on the record 

evidence and pursuant to section 776(b) 

of the Act, the Department has 

determined that Kim Anh did not 

cooperate to the best of its ability to 

comply with the Department’s requests 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 71009

6Also known as Camimex and Seafood Factory 

No. 4. 

7Not a separate rate. 

8Also known as Minh Phu Seafood Export-Import 

Corporation, Minh Phu, Minh Phu Seafood Pte., 

Minh Qui Seafood Co. Ltd., Minh Qui, Minh Phat 

Seafood Co. Ltd. & Minh Phat. 

9Also known as Seaprodex Minh Hai. 

10Also known as Amanda VN & Amanda. 

11Also known as APT and A.P.T. Co. 

12Also known as Bac Lieu, BACLIEUFIS, Bac 

Lieu Fis, Bac Lieu Fisheries Co. Ltd., Bac Lieu 

Fisheries Limited Company & Bac Lieu Fisheries 

Company Ltd. 

13Also known as COFIDEC. 

14Also known as Cadovimex. 

15Also known as Cam Ranh. 

16Also known as Cataco, Duyen Hai Foodstuffs 

Processing Factory, Caseafood, Coseafex & Cantho 

Seafood Export. 

17Also known as Cafatex, Cafatex Vietnam, Xi 

Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat Khau Can 

Tho, CAS, CAS Branch, Cafatex Saigon, Cafatex 

Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, Cafatex 

Corporation & Taydo Seafood Enterprise. 

18Also known as Cuu Long Seapro. 

Continued

for information. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act, we find that Kim Anh does not 

qualify for a separate rate and that the 

use of adverse facts available to 

determine the margin for Kim Anh is 

warranted for the final determination in 

this investigation. Accordingly, Kim 

Anh will be subject to the Vietnam-wide 

rate (see above). This rate was 

corroborated in the final determination. 

See Corroboration Memo; see also

Comment 6 in the Decision 

Memorandum for a further discussion of 

this issue. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Determination, we 

stated that we had selected Bangladesh 

as the appropriate surrogate country to 

use in this investigation for the 

following reasons: (1) Bangladesh is at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to Vietnam; (2) Bangladeshi 

manufacturers produce comparable 

merchandise and are significant 

producers of frozen and canned 

warmwater shrimp; (3) Bangladesh 

provides the best opportunity to use 

appropriate, publicly available data to 

value the factors of production. See 

Preliminary Determination, 69 FR at 

42678. We received no comments from 

interested parties concerning our 

selection of Bangladesh as the surrogate 

country during the briefing stage of this 

investigation. For the final 

determination, we have determined to 

continue to use Bangladesh as the 

surrogate country and, accordingly, 

have calculated normal value using 

Bangladeshi prices to value the 

Respondents’ factors of production, 

when available and appropriate. We 

have obtained and relied upon publicly 

available information wherever 

possible. For a detailed description of 

the surrogate values that have changed 

as a result of comments the Department 

has received, see the Final Surrogate 

Value Memorandum dated November 

29, 2004. 

Separate Rates 

In the Preliminary Determination and 

the Amended Preliminary 

Determination, the Department found 

that several companies which provided 

responses to Section A of the 

antidumping questionnaire were eligible 

for a rate separate from the Vietnamwide rate. For the final determination, 

we have determined that additional 

companies have qualified for separaterate status. See Section A Memo. For a 

complete listing of all the companies 

that received a separate rate, see the 

‘‘Final Determination Margins’’ section 

below. 

The margin we calculated in the 

Preliminary Determination for these 

companies was 16.01 percent. Because 

the rates of the selected Mandatory 

Respondents have changed since the 

Preliminary Determination and the 

Amended Preliminary Determination,

we have recalculated the rate for Section 

A Respondents that are eligible for a 

separate rate. The rate is 4.38 percent. 

See Memorandum to the File from Paul 

Walker, Calculation of Section A Rate,

dated November 29, 2004.

Final Determination Margins 

We determine that the following 

percentage weighted-average margins 

exist for the POI:

CERTAIN FROZEN AND CANNED

WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM MANDATORY RESPONDENTS

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent) 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation 6 ........................................ 4.99 

Kim Anh Company Limited 7 ...... 25.76 

Minh Phu Seafood Corporation 8 4.21 

Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods 

Processing Company 9 ............ 4.13 

Vietnam-Wide Margin ................. 25.76 

CERTAIN FROZEN AND CANNED

WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM SECTION A RESPONDENTS

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent) 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd.10 4.38 

Aquatic Products Trading Company 11 ..................................... 4.38 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Company 

Limited 12 ................................. 4.38 

Coastal Fisheries Development 

Corporation 13 .......................... 4.38 

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company 14 ...................... 4.38 

Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing 

Enterprise Company 15 ........... 4.38 

Can Tho Agriculture and Animal 

Products Import Export Company 16 ..................................... 4.38 

Cantho Animal Fisheries Product 

Processing Export Enterprise 17 ..................................... 4.38 

C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. Ltd. 4.38 

Cuu Long Seaproducts Company 18 ..................................... 4.38 

Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation 19 .................. 4.38 

Hanoi Seaproducts Import Export Corporation 20 .................. 4.38 

Investment Commerce Fisheries 

Corporation 21 .......................... 4.38 

CERTAIN FROZEN AND CANNED

WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM SECTION A RESPONDENTS—

Continued

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage

margin

(percent) 

Kien Giang Sea-Product ImportExport Company 22 ................. 4.38 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood 

Processing Joint-Stock Company 23 ..................................... 4.38 

Minh Hai Seaproducts Import 

Export Corporation 24 .............. 4.38 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company 25 ............................. 4.38 

Nha Trang Seaproduct Company 26 ..................................... 4.38 

Pataya Food Industries (Vietnam) Ltd.27 .............................. 4.38 

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing 

and Import-Export Company 

Limited 28 ................................. 4.38 

Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company 29 ..................................... 4.38 

Soc Trang Aquatic Products and 

General Import Export Company 30 ..................................... 4.38 

Song Huong ASC Import-Export 

Company Ltd.31 ...................... 4.38 

Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and 

Trading Corporation 32 ............ 4.38 

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company 33 ................. 4.38 

Viet Foods Co., Ltd.34 ................ 4.38 

Viet Nhan Company ................... 4.38 

Viet Hai Seafood Company 

Ltd.35 ....................................... 4.38 

Vinh Loi Import Export Company 36 ..................................... 4.38 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

Pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we 

will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 

71010 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 235 / Wednesday, December 8, 2004 / Notices 

19Also known as Seaprodex Danang, Tho Quang 

Seafood Processing and Export Company & Tho 

Quang. 

20Also known as Seaprodex Hanoi. 

21Also known as INCOMFISH, Investment 

Commerce Fisheries Corp., INCOMFISH Corp. & 

INCOMFISH Corporation. 

22Also known as KISIMEX, Kien Giang 

Seaproduct Import & Export Company, Kien Giang 

Seaproduct Import and Export Company, Kien 

Giang Seaproduct Import Export Co., Kien Giang 

Sea Product Import & Export Co., Kien Giang Sea 

Product Import and Export Company, Kien Giang 

Sea Product Import & Export Company, Kien Giang 

Sea Product Import & Export Co., & Kien Giang Sea 

Product Im. & Ex. Co. 

23Also known as Minh Hai Jostoco. 

24Also known as Seaprimexco. 

25Also known as Nha Trang Fisco & Nhatrang 

Fisco. 

26Also known as Nha Trang Seafoods. 

27Also known as Pataya VN. 

28Also known as Phu Cuong Seafoods Processing 

Import-Export Company Ltd., Phu Cuong Co., Phu 

Cuong, Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & ImportExport Co. Ltd., Phu Cuong Seafood Processing, 

Phu Cuong Co. Ltd. & Phu Cuong Seafood 

Processing Import & Export Company Limited. 

29Also known as Fimex VN, Saota Seafood 

Factory and Sao Ta Seafood Factory. 

30Also known as STAPIMEX. 

31Also known as Song Huong ASC Joint Stock 

Company, SOSEAFOOD, ASC, Song Huong Import 

Export Seafood Joint Stock Company, Song Huong 

Import-Export Seafood Joint Stock Company, Song 

Huong Import Export Seafood Company, Song 

Huong Import-Export Company, Song Huong 

Seafood Import Export Co., Song Huong Seafood 

Im-Export Co., SongHuong & Songhuong Joint Stock 

Company. 

32Also known as Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32. 

33Also known as UTXI, UTXI Co. Ltd., UT XI 

Aquatic Products Processing Company & UT–XI 

Aquatic Products Processing Company. 

34Also known as Viet Foods, Nam Hai Exports 

Food Stuff Limited, Nam Hai Export Foodstuff 

Company Ltd., Vietfoods Co. Ltd., Viet Foods 

Company Limited & Vietfoods Company Limited. 

35Also known as Vietnam FishOne, Vietnam 

Fish-One Company Co. Ltd., Vietnam Fish-One, 

Vietnam Fish-One Co. Ltd., Vietnam Fish One Co. 

Ltd., Vietnam Fish One Company Limited & 

Vietnam Fish-One Company Limited. 

36Also known as VIMEXCO, Vinh Loi Import/

Export Co., VIMEX, VinhLoi Import Export 

Company & Vinh Loi Import-Export Company.

Protection (‘‘Customs’’) to continue to 

suspend liquidation of all entries of 

subject merchandise from Vietnam 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after July 16, 

2004, the date of publication of the 

Preliminary Determination. Customs 

shall continue to require a cash deposit 

or the posting of a bond equal to the 

estimated amount by which the normal 

value exceeds the U.S. price as shown 

above. These instructions suspending 

liquidation will remain in effect until 

further notice.

Disclosure 

We will disclose the calculations 

performed within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice to parties in 

this proceeding in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.224(b).

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our 

final determination of sales at LTFV. As 

our final determination is affirmative, in 

accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the 

Act, within 45 days the ITC will 

determine whether the domestic 

industry in the United States is 

materially injured, or threatened with 

material injury, by reason of imports or 

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for 

importation of the subject merchandise. 

If the ITC determines that material 

injury or threat of material injury does 

not exist, the proceeding will be 

terminated and all securities posted will 

be refunded or canceled. If the ITC 

determines that such injury does exist, 

the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing 

Customs to assess antidumping duties 

on all imports of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the effective date of the suspension 

of liquidation (i.e., July 16, 2004). 

Notification Regarding APO 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely 

notification of return or destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and the terms of an APO is a 

sanctionable violation. 

This determination is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: November 29, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix

Comment 1: Raw Shrimp Price 

Comment 2: The Department’s Zeroing 

Methodology 

Comment 3: Surrogate Value for Water 

A. Water Rates in Bangladesh 

B. Water Value Conversion Error 

Comment 4: Financial Ratios 

A. Surrogate Company Financial Ratios 

B. By-Product Offset for Mandatory 

Respondents 

C. Inclusion of Factor X and Factor Y in 

Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 5: Company Specific Issues, 

Camimex 

A. Headless Shell-on (‘‘HLSO’’)-toHeadless Shell-off (‘‘HOSO’’) Conversion 

B. International Freight 

Comment 6: Total Adverse Facts Available 

(‘‘AFA’’) for Kim Anh Co. Ltd. (‘‘Kim 

Anh’’) 

Comment 7: Company Specific Issues, Minh 

Phu 

A. HLSO-to-HOSO Conversion 

B. Cold Storage 

C. Partial AFA for Direct Labor 

Comment 8: Company Specific Issues, SMH 

A. Market Economy Purchase 

B. Recalculation of a Surrogate Expense for 

SMH 

C. Calculation of Weighted-Average U.S. 

Prices and Normal Values on a 

CONNUM-Specific Basis for SMH 

D. HLSO-to-HOSO Conversion 

Comment 9: Weight-Averaging Respondent 

Margins by Net U.S. Sales Value to 

Calculate Separate Rates 

Comment 10: Calculation of Vietnam-Wide 

Margin 

A. The Department Should Eliminate the 

Country-Wide Rate In All Cases 

B. The Department Should Not Apply AFA 

to the Vietnam-Wide Rate 

C. The Department Chose an Incorrect AFA 

Rate 

Comment 11: Separate Rate Calculation 

Comment 12: The Department Should 

Amend Its Customs Instructions to 

Include Additional Company Names 

Discussed in Section A Responses

[FR Doc. 04–26977 Filed 12–7–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–825]

Sebacic Acid from the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of Time 

Limit for Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is extending the time 

limit for the final results of the 2002–

2003 antidumping duty administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on sebacic acid from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC) by seven days 

from December 3, 2004, until no later 

than December 10, 2004. The period of 

review (POR) is July 1, 2002, through 

June 30, 2003. This extension is made 

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

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the 

Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jennifer Moats or Brian Ledgerwood, 

China/NME Group, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

76910 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 

1The petitioners in this investigation are the Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (an ad hoc 

coalition representative of U.S. producers of frozen 

and canned warmwater shrimp and harvesters of 

wild-caught warmwater shrimp), Versaggi Shrimp 

Corporation, and Indian Ridge Shrimp Company.

MEDIAN DEPRECIATION RATES OF RUS 

BORROWERS BY EQUIPMENT CATEGORY FOR PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2003 

Telecommunications plant 

category 

Depreciation 

rate

(percent) 

1. Land and Support Assets: 

a. Motor Vehicles ............ 15.00 

b. Aircraft ......................... 11.25 

c. Special purpose vehicles .............................. 12.07 

e. Buildings ..................... 3.16 

f. Furniture and Office 

equipment .................... 10.00 

g. General purpose computers ........................... 19.325 

2. Central Office Switching: 

a. Digital .......................... 8.33 

b. Analog & Electro-mechanical ....................... 10.00 

c. Operator Systems ....... 9.00 

3. Central Office Transmission: 

a. Radio Systems ............ 9.46 

b. Circuit equipment ........ 10.00 

4. Information origination/

termination: 

a. Station apparatus ........ 12.00 

b. Customer premises 

wiring ........................... 10.00 

c. Large private branch 

exchanges ................... 12.50 

d. Public telephone terminal equipment .......... 11.10 

e. Other terminal equipment ............................. 10.00 

5. Cable and wire facilities: 

a. Aerial cable—Poles .... 6.36 

b. Aerial cable—Metal ..... 6.00 

c. Aerial cable—Fiber ..... 5.10 

d. Underground cable—

Metal ............................ 5.00 

e. Underground cable—

Fiber ............................ 5.00 

f. Buried cable—Metal .... 5.00 

g. Buried cable—Fiber .... 5.00 

h. Conduit systems ......... 3.03 

i. Other ............................ 10.07 

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

Curtis Anderson, 

Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.

[FR Doc. 04–28081 Filed 12–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–15–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security 

Materials Technical Advisory 

Committee; Notice of Open Meeting 

The Materials Technical Advisory 

Committee (MTAC) will meet on 

January 27, 2005, 10:30 a.m., in the 

Herbert C. Hoover Building, Room 3884, 

14th Street between Constitution & 

Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., 

Washington, DC. The Committee 

advises the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Export Administration 

with respect to technical questions that 

affect the level of export controls 

applicable to advanced materials and 

related technology. 

Agenda:

1. Opening remarks. 

2. Presentation of papers and 

comments by the public. 

3. Review of Chemical Weapons 

Convention Schedules. 

The meeting will be open to the 

public and a limited number of seats 

will be available. Reservations are not 

accepted. To the extent that time 

permits, members of the public may 

present oral statements to the 

Committee. Written statements may be 

submitted at any time before or after the 

meeting. However, to facilitate 

distribution of public presentation 

materials to Committee members, the 

Committee suggests that presenters 

forward the public presentation 

materials to Lee Ann Carpenter at 

Lcarpent@bis.doc.gov.

For more information contact Lee Ann 

Carpenter on (202) 482–2583.

Dated: December 20, 2004. 

Lee Ann Carpenter, 

Committee Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–28103 Filed 12–22–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–JT–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–838] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

From Brazil

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2004.

SUMMARY: On August 4, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

determination of sales at less than fair 

value (LTFV) of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil. 

The period of investigation is October 1, 

2002, through September 30, 2003. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 

in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Trainor or Kate Johnson, 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) 482–4007 or (202) 482–

4929, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Final Determination 

We determine that certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from Brazil 

is being, or is likely to be, sold in the 

United States at LTFV, as provided in 

section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales at LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section 

of this notice. 

Case History 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on August 

4, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

69 FR 47081 (Preliminary 

Determination). We amended the 

preliminary determination to correct 

certain ministerial errors made in the 

margin calculation for Empresa de 

Armazenagem Frigorifica Ltda. 

(EMPAF), which we determined to be 

significant under 19 CFR 351.224(g). See 

Notice of Amended Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 69 FR 

52860 (August 30, 2004). 

Since the amended preliminary 

determination, the following events 

have occurred. During the period July 

through October 2004, various 

interested parties, including the 

petitioners,1 submitted comments on 

the scope of this and the concurrent 

investigations of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp.

On September 1, 2004, Norte Pesca, 

S.A. withdrew from this investigation. 

During the period September 6—17, 

2004, and September 29—October 1, 

2004, we conducted the sales and cost 

verifications of the questionnaire 

responses of EMPAF and Central de 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 76911

2These briefs related only to scope issues.

3The briefs submitted by Eastern Fish Company, 

Inc. And Long John Silver’s, Inc. related only to 

scope issues.

4 Id.

5 In addition to these scope determinations, the 

Department previously made five other scope 

determinations: (1) On May 21, 2004, the 

Department declined to expand the scope of this 

investigation to include fresh (never frozen) shrimp; 

(2) on July 2, 2004, pursuant to a request from 

Ocean Duke Corporation, an interested party in the 

companion investigation of frozen and canned 

warmwater shrimp from Thailand, the Department 

found that its ‘‘Seafood Mix’’ is excluded from the 

scope of this investigation; (3) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that salad shrimp, sold in counts 

of 250 pieces or higher, are included within the 

scope of the this investigation; (4) on July 2, 2004, 

the Department found that Macrobrachium 

rosenbergii and organic shrimp are included within 

the scope of this investigation; and (5) on July 2, 

2004, the Department found that peeled shrimp are 

included within the scope of this investigation.

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

includes the telson and the uropods.

Industrializacao e Distribuicao de 

Alimentos Ltda. (CIDA). 

On September 3, 2004, CIDA and the 

Association of Brazilian Shrimp 

Farmers (ABCC) requested a hearing. 

EMPAF requested a hearing on 

September 28, 2004. On October 20 and 

26, 2004, Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd., 

an interested party in the companion 

investigation of frozen and canned 

warmwater shrimp from Thailand, 

submitted case and rebuttal briefs, 

respectively.2 We received case briefs 

on November 3, 2004, from the 

petitioners, CIDA, EMPAF, ABCC, and 

two other interested parties in this 

investigation, Eastern Fish Company, 

Inc. and Long John Silver’s, Inc.3 On 

November 12, 2004, we received 

rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, 

CIDA, EMPAF, Eastern Fish Company, 

Inc. and Long John Silver’s, Inc.4 On 

November 17, 2004, CIDA, EMPAF and 

ABCC withdrew their requests for a 

hearing.

On November 12, 2004, and 

November 15, 2004, pursuant to the 

Department’s request, we received 

revised sales and cost databases from 

CIDA and EMPAF, respectively, which 

incorporated certain changes discovered 

in preparation for and during 

verification. 

On November 23, 2004, the 

Department convened a public hearing 

on scope issues. On November 29, 2004, 

the Department made final scope 

determinations with respect to shrimp 

scampi and dusted and battered shrimp. 

See the November 29, 2004, Memoranda 

from Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. 

Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

entitled, ‘‘Scope Clarification on Shrimp 

Scampi’; and ‘‘Scope Clarification on 

Dusted Shrimp and Battered Shrimp,’’

respectively. See also the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section of this notice, 

below, for further discussion.5

Also on November 29, 2004, the 

Department clarified that a shrimp 

sauce produced by a company in the 

companion investigation of frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China, Lee Kum 

Kee (USA) Inc., is not covered by the 

scope of that investigation. See the 

November 29, 2004, Memorandum from 

Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration entitled, ‘‘Scope 

Clarification on Lee Kum Kee’s Shrimp 

Sauce.’’

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is October 

1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The various scope issues are 

discussed in the ‘‘Case History’’ section 

of this notice and the separate scope 

memoranda. All other issues raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 

this investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memorandum) from Barbara 

E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated December 

17, 2004, which is adopted by this 

notice. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of the issues raised in this 

investigation and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the 

main Commerce Building (CRU). In 

addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http://

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper 

copy and electronic version of the 

Decision Memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes certain warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether frozen or canned, 

wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farmraised (produced by aquaculture), headon or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tailon or tail-off,6 deveined or not 

deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise 

processed in frozen or canned form.

The frozen or canned warmwater 

shrimp and prawn products included in 

the scope of this investigation, 

regardless of definitions in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through either 

freezing or canning and which are sold 

in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of the 

investigation. In addition, food 

preparations, which are not ‘‘prepared 

meals,’’ that contain more than 20 

percent by weight of shrimp or prawn 

are also included in the scope of the 

investigation. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns 

(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 

(0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 

shrimp and prawns in prepared meals 

(1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) dusted shrimp; and (7) 

battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a 

shrimp-based product: (1) That is 

produced from fresh (or thawed-fromfrozen) 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 nonshrimp content of the end product 

constituting between four and 10 

percent of the product’s total weight 

after being dusted, but prior to being 

frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF 

freezing immediately after application 

of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is 

a shrimp-based product that, when 

dusted in accordance with the 

definition of dusting above, is coated 

with a wet viscous layer containing egg 

and/or milk, and par-fried.

76912 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 

The products covered by this scope 

are currently classifiable 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, 1605.20.10.30, and 

1605.20.10.40. These HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes only 

and are not dispositive, but rather the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations. For 

a discussion of these changes, see the 

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the 

Decision Memorandum. 

Use of Facts Available for Norte Pesca 

On September 1, 2004, two weeks 

prior to the Department’s planned 

verification of Norte Pesca’s submitted 

cost and sales information, Norte Pesca 

notified the Department that it no longer 

intended to participate in this 

investigation. See Letter from Norte 

Pesca to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce

on file in the CRU. As a result, we were 

unable to verify the information 

submitted by Norte Pesca. By ceasing to 

participate, Norte Pesca significantly 

impeded the investigation. Pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(C) and (D) of the Act, 

if an interested party significantly 

impedes the investigation or provides 

information that cannot be verified, the 

Department shall use, subject to sections 

782(d) and (e) of the Act, facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination. 

Once we determine that the use of 

facts available is warranted, section 

776(b) of the Act further permits us to 

apply an adverse inference if we make 

the additional finding that ‘‘a 

respondent has failed to cooperate by 

not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information.’’

By ceasing to participate in the 

investigation and precluding the 

verification of its submitted cost and 

sales information, Norte Pesca did not 

act to the best of its ability as required 

by section 776(b) of the Act. 

Consequently, we have determined to 

make an adverse inference in 

determining the dumping margin for 

Norte Pesca. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol From the 

Republic of Korea, 68 FR 47540 (August 

11, 2003). 

Section 776(b) of the Act authorizes 

the Department to use as adverse facts 

available (AFA) information derived 

from the petition, a final investigation 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or any other 

information placed on the record. The 

Department’s practice when selecting an 

adverse rate from among the possible 

sources of information is to ensure that 

the margin is sufficiently adverse to 

induce respondents to provide the 

Department with complete and accurate 

information in a timely manner.’’ See 

Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire 

Rod from Brazil, Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances, 67 FR 55792 (August 30, 

2002); Static Random Access Memory 

Semiconductors from Taiwan, Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value, 63 FR 8909, (February 23, 1998). 

The Department applies AFA ‘‘to ensure 

that the party does not obtain a more 

favorable result by failing to cooperate 

than if it had cooperated fully.’’ See 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

Statement of Administrative Action, 

H.R. Doc. No. 103–316, vol. 1, at 870 

(1994)(SAA). 

As total AFA we have assigned to 

exports of the subject merchandise 

produced by Norte Pesca the rate of 

67.80, which is the rate assigned to 

Norte Pesca in the preliminary 

determination. We find that this rate is 

sufficiently adverse to serve the 

purposes of facts available, explained 

above. See Memorandum to Louis 

Apple, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 2, Import Administration, Final 

Determination of Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: 

Use of Facts Available for Norte Pesca, 

dated December 17, 2004, on file in the 

CRU (AFA Memorandum). 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information in using the facts 

otherwise available, it must, to the 

extent practicable, corroborate that 

information from independent sources 

that are reasonably at its disposal. We 

have interpreted ‘‘corroborate’’ to mean 

that we will, to the extent practicable, 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information submitted. See Certain 

Cold-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality 

Steel Products From Brazil: Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 65 FR 5554 (February 

4, 2000); See, e.g., Tapered Roller 

Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished 

and Unfinished, from Japan, and 

Tapered Roller Bearings, Four Inches or 

Less in Outside Diameter, and 

Components Thereof, from Japan; 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Partial Termination of Administrative 

Reviews, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 

6, 1996). 

As detailed in the AFA Memorandum, 

in selecting the AFA rate for Norte 

Pesca, we did not use either of the two 

highest of the three petition rates 

because we were unable to corroborate 

them with independent information 

reasonably at our disposal and we have 

an alternative that we find to be 

sufficiently adverse to effectuate the 

purpose of the AFA provision of the 

statute. We did not use the remaining 

petition rate because it was lower than 

Norte Pesca’s preliminary margin, and 

as such would not accomplish the 

objectives of AFA, stated above. Thus, 

we assigned the rate of 67.80 percent, 

which was based on information 

submitted by Norte Pesca in its 

questionnaire responses and database 

submissions, and remains on the record 

of this investigation. Because this 

information was provided to us by the 

respondent, it is not considered to be 

secondary information, and therefore, 

needs not be corroborated. We conclude 

that this data, although unverified, 

continues to be the best information 

reasonably available to us to effectuate 

the purpose of AFA.

Collapsing CIDA With Its Affiliated 

Processor 

CIDA and its processing company, Cia 

Exportadora de Produtus do Mar 

(‘‘Produmar’’), are two separate 

companies owned and operated by 

members of the same family. In the 

preliminary determination, consistent 

with 19 CFR 351.401(h) of the 

Department’s regulations, we 

determined that Produmar was an 

affiliated toller rather than a 

manufacturer or producer, because it 

neither acquired ownership nor 

controlled the sale of the subject 

merchandise. See Preliminary 

Determination at 47087. Therefore, 

rather than collapsing these two entities 

and using Produmar’s costs in our COP 

and CV calculations, we applied the 

‘‘major input’’ rule, and used the 

transfer price for Produmar’s processing 

services. We stated that given the nature 

of the affiliation between the entities at 

issue, we recognized that a related issue 

could arise as to whether there is a 

potential for manipulation of price or 

production and, if so, whether the two 

entities should receive the same 

dumping rate. Based on this recognition, 

we solicited comments from the parties 

as to whether to collapse CIDA and 

Produmar in the final determination. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 76913

Since the preliminary determination, 

and as detailed in the December 17, 

2004, Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, the extent to which the 

two companies operate as a single entity 

has become apparent, such that we 

believe there to be significant potential 

for manipulation of price and 

production between CIDA and 

Produmar. Therefore, we have collapsed 

the two entities for the final 

determination. Accordingly, we have 

used the actual costs incurred by 

Produmar in valuing the processing 

services it provided to CIDA, and we 

have assigned the two companies a 

single dumping margin. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the respondents (except 

for Norte Pesca as discussed above) for 

use in our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

the respondents. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp 

from Brazil that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after August 4, 2004, 

the publication date of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register

or, in the case of EMPAF, August 30, 

2004, the publication date of the 

amended preliminary determination. 

CBP shall continue to require a cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond based 

on the estimated weighted-average 

dumping margins shown below. The 

suspension of liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer 

Weighted-average margin 

percentage 

Empresa de Armazenagem 

Frigorifica Ltda. (EMPAF) ... 10.70 

Central de Industrializacao e 

Distribuicao de Alimentos 

Ltda. (CIDA)/Cia 

Exportadora de Produtos do 

Mar (Produmar) ................... 9.69 

Norte Pesca S.A. .................... 67.80 

All Others ................................ 10.40 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate on the weighted 

average of the dumping margins 

calculated for the exporters/

manufacturers investigated in this 

proceeding. The ‘‘all others’’ rate is 

derived exclusive of all de minimis

margins and margins based entirely on 

AFA. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

these imports are causing material 

injury, or threat of material injury, to an 

industry in the United States. If the ITC 

determines that material injury or threat 

of injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

officials to assess antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of return/

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. We are 

issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act.

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comments 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Offsets for Non-Dumped 

Comparisons 

Comment 2: Calculation of the ‘‘All Others’’

Rate 

Company-Specific Issues 

CIDA 

Comment 3: Billing Adjustments 

Comment 4: Insurance Payments as an Offset 

to General and Administrative Expenses 

Comment 5: Collapsing CIDA with its 

Affiliated Processor 

Comment 6: Cost Allocation Methodology 

Comment 7: Ration and Larva Costs 

Comment 8: Loss on Sale of Fixed Assets 

Comment 9: ICMS Taxes 

Comment 10: Change in Raw Shrimp 

Inventory 

Comment 11: Prompt Payment Discounts 

EMPAF 

Comment 12: Presumed Credit and IPI Export 

Credit Premium Revenue 

Comment 13: Brazilian Indirect Selling 

Expenses 

Comment 14: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

Comment 15: Container Weight 

Comment 16: SPECIES Product Characteristic 

Comment 17: Accounting Errors Prior to the 

Cost Reporting Period 

Comment 18: Double Counting Indirect 

Selling Expenses 

Comment 19: Amortization of PreOperational Costs 

Comment 20: Allocation of Depreciation to 

Work-in-Process Inventory 

Comment 21: Other Adjustments to Shrimp 

Costs 

Norte Pesca 

Comment 22: Adverse Facts Available Rate 

for Norte Pesca 

[FR Doc. 04–28110 Filed 12–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–331–802] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

From Ecuador

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2004.

SUMMARY: On August 4, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

determination of sales at less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Ecuador. The period of investigation is 

October 1, 2002, through September 30, 

2003. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 

in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Terre Keaton, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 76913

Since the preliminary determination, 

and as detailed in the December 17, 

2004, Issues and Decision 

Memorandum, the extent to which the 

two companies operate as a single entity 

has become apparent, such that we 

believe there to be significant potential 

for manipulation of price and 

production between CIDA and 

Produmar. Therefore, we have collapsed 

the two entities for the final 

determination. Accordingly, we have 

used the actual costs incurred by 

Produmar in valuing the processing 

services it provided to CIDA, and we 

have assigned the two companies a 

single dumping margin. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the respondents (except 

for Norte Pesca as discussed above) for 

use in our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

the respondents. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp 

from Brazil that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after August 4, 2004, 

the publication date of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register

or, in the case of EMPAF, August 30, 

2004, the publication date of the 

amended preliminary determination. 

CBP shall continue to require a cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond based 

on the estimated weighted-average 

dumping margins shown below. The 

suspension of liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer 

Weighted-average margin 

percentage 

Empresa de Armazenagem 

Frigorifica Ltda. (EMPAF) ... 10.70 

Norte Pesca S.A. .................... 67.80 

All Others ................................ 10.40 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate on the weighted 

average of the dumping margins 

calculated for the exporters/

manufacturers investigated in this 

proceeding. The ‘‘all others’’ rate is 

derived exclusive of all de minimis

margins and margins based entirely on 

AFA. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

these imports are causing material 

injury, or threat of material injury, to an 

industry in the United States. If the ITC 

determines that material injury or threat 

of injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

officials to assess antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation.

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of return/

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. We are 

issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act.

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comments 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Offsets for Non-Dumped 

Comparisons 

Comment 2: Calculation of the ‘‘All Others’’

Rate 

Company-Specific Issues 

CIDA 

Comment 3: Billing Adjustments 

Comment 4: Insurance Payments as an Offset 

to General and Administrative Expenses 

Comment 5: Collapsing CIDA with its 

Affiliated Processor 

Comment 6: Cost Allocation Methodology 

Comment 7: Ration and Larva Costs 

Comment 8: Loss on Sale of Fixed Assets 

Comment 9: ICMS Taxes 

Comment 10: Change in Raw Shrimp 

Inventory 

Comment 11: Prompt Payment Discounts 

EMPAF 

Comment 12: Presumed Credit and IPI Export 

Credit Premium Revenue 

Comment 13: Brazilian Indirect Selling 

Expenses 

Comment 14: U.S. Indirect Selling Expenses 

Comment 15: Container Weight 

Comment 16: SPECIES Product Characteristic 

Comment 17: Accounting Errors Prior to the 

Cost Reporting Period 

Comment 18: Double Counting Indirect 

Selling Expenses 

Comment 19: Amortization of PreOperational Costs 

Comment 20: Allocation of Depreciation to 

Work-in-Process Inventory 

Comment 21: Other Adjustments to Shrimp 

Costs 

Norte Pesca 

Comment 22: Adverse Facts Available Rate 

for Norte Pesca 

[FR Doc. 04–28110 Filed 12–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–331–802] 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

From Ecuador

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2004.

SUMMARY: On August 4, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published its preliminary 

determination of sales at less-than-fairvalue (LTFV) of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Ecuador. The period of investigation is 

October 1, 2002, through September 30, 

2003. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 

in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David J. Goldberger or Terre Keaton, 

76914 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 

1The petitioners in this investigation are the Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (an ad hoc 

coalition representative of U.S. producers of frozen 

and canned warmwater shrimp and harvesters of 

wild-caught warmwater shrimp), Versaggi Shrimp 

Corporation, and Indian Ridge Shrimp Company.

2 In addition to these scope determinations, the 

Department previously made five other scope 

determinations: (1) On May 21, 2004, the 

Department declined to expand the scope of this 

investigation to include fresh (never frozen) shrimp; 

(2) on July 2, 2004, pursuant to a request from 

Ocean Duke Corporation, an interested party in the 

companion investigation of frozen and canned 

warmwater shrimp from Thailand, the Department 

found that its ‘‘Seafood Mix’’ is excluded from the 

scope of this investigation; (3) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that salad shrimp, sold in counts 

of 250 pieces or higher, are included within the 

scope of this investigation; (4) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that Macrobrachium rosenbergii

and organic shrimp are included within the scope 

of this investigation; and (5) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that peeled shrimp are included 

within the scope of this investigation.

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

includes the telson and the uropods.

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–4136, or 

(202) 482–1280, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Final Determination 

We determine that certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Ecuador is being, or is likely to be, sold 

in the United States at LTFV, as 

provided in section 735 of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (the Act). The 

estimated margins of sales at LTFV are 

shown in the ‘‘Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. 

Case History 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on August 

4, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Ecuador, 69 FR 47091 (Preliminary 

Determination). 

Since the preliminary determination, 

the following events have occurred. 

During the period July through October 

2004, various interested parties, 

including the petitioners,1 submitted 

comments on the scope of this and the 

concurrent investigations of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp.

In August and September 2004, we 

conducted sales and cost verifications of 

the questionnaire responses of the three 

respondents in this case, Exporklore 

S.A. (Exporklore), Exportadora De 

Alimentos S.A. (Expalsa), and 

Promarisco S.A. (Promarisco). 

On August 13, 2004, the respondents 

requested a public hearing. We received 

case briefs on October 28, 2004, from 

the petitioners and the respondents. 

Promarisco resubmitted its brief on 

November 3, 2004, at the Department’s 

request, in order to exclude unsolicited 

new factual information. In addition, in 

October 2004, Xian-Ning Seafood Co., 

Ltd., an interested party in the 

companion investigation of frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand, and two interested parties in 

this investigation, Eastern Fish 

Company, Inc., and Long John Silver’s, 

Inc., submitted case and rebuttal briefs 

with respect to scope issues. 

On November 5 and 10, 2004, 

pursuant to the Department’s request, 

Exporklore and Expalsa, respectively, 

submitted revised sales and cost 

databases which incorporated certain 

changes discovered in preparation for 

and during verification. 

On November 23, 2004, the 

Department convened a public hearing 

on scope issues. On November 29, 2004, 

the Department made final scope 

determinations with respect to shrimp 

scampi and dusted and battered shrimp. 

See the November 29, 2004, Memoranda 

from Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. 

Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

entitled ‘‘Scope Clarification on Shrimp 

Scampi’’; and ‘‘Scope Clarification on 

Dusted Shrimp and Battered Shrimp,’’

respectively. See also the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section of this notice, 

below, for further discussion.2

Also on November 29, 2004, the 

Department clarified that a shrimp 

sauce produced by a company in the 

companion investigation of frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China, Lee Kum 

Kee (USA) Inc., is not covered by the 

scope of that investigation. See the 

November 29, 2004, Memorandum from 

Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration entitled ‘‘Scope 

Clarification on Lee Kum Kee’s Shrimp 

Sauce.’’

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is October 

1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The various scope issues are 

discussed in the ‘‘Case History’’ section 

of this notice and the separate scope 

memoranda. All issues raised in the 

case briefs by parties to this proceeding 

and to which we have responded are 

listed in the appendix to this notice and 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (Decision 

Memorandum) from Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, to James J. 

Jochum, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, dated December 17, 

2004, which is adopted by this notice. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of the issues raised in this investigation 

and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the 

main Commerce Building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes certain warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether frozen or canned, 

wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farmraised (produced by aquaculture), headon or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tailon or tail-off,3 deveined or not 

deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise 

processed in frozen or canned form.

The frozen or canned warmwater 

shrimp and prawn products included in 

the scope of this investigation, 

regardless of definitions in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through either 

freezing or canning and which are sold 

in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of the 

investigation. In addition, food 

preparations, which are not ‘‘prepared 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 76915

meals,’’ that contain more than 20 

percent by weight of shrimp or prawn 

are also included in the scope of the 

investigation. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns 

(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 

(0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 

shrimp and prawns in prepared meals 

(1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) dusted shrimp; and (7) 

battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a 

shrimp-based product: (1) That is 

produced from fresh (or thawed-fromfrozen) 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 nonshrimp content of the end product 

constituting between four and 10 

percent of the product’s total weight 

after being dusted, but prior to being 

frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF 

freezing immediately after application 

of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is 

a shrimp-based product that, when 

dusted in accordance with the 

definition of dusting above, is coated 

with a wet viscous layer containing egg 

and/or milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by this scope 

are currently classifiable 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, 1605.20.10.30, and 

1605.20.10.40. These HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes only 

and are not dispositive, but rather the 

written description of the scope of this 

investigation is dispositive.

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations. For 

a discussion of these changes, see the 

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the 

Decision Memorandum. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the respondents for use in 

our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

the respondents. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp 

from Ecuador that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after August 4, 2004, 

the publication date of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register. 

CBP shall continue to require a cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond based 

on the estimated weighted-average 

dumping margin shown below. The 

suspension of liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows:

Exporter/Manufacturer 

Weighted-average margin 

percentage 

Exportadora De Alimentos 

S.A. (Expalsa) ..................... 2.62 

Exporklore S.A. ....................... 2.35 

Promarisco S.A. ...................... 4.48 

All Others ................................ 3.26 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

these imports are causing material 

injury, or threat of material injury, to an 

industry in the United States. If the ITC 

determines that material injury or threat 

of injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

officials to assess antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of return/

destruction

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act.

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

James J. Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comments 

Comment 1: Offsets for Non-Dumped Sales 

Comment 2: Exclusion of Substandard 

Shrimp from the U.S. Sales Databases 

Comment 3: ‘‘Container Weight’’ as Product 

Matching Characteristic 

Comment 4: ‘‘As Sold’’ Versus HLSO Basis 

for Price and Quantity 

Comment 5: ‘‘Packaging’’ Materials Versus 

‘‘Packing’’ Materials 

Comment 6: Expalsa’s and Promarisco’s 

Inland Freight and Testing Expense 

Methodology 

Comment 7: Expalsa’s Sales of Organic 

Shrimp 

Comment 8: Grade as a Model-Matching 

Criterion for Expalsa Sales 

Comment 9: Expalsa’s Sales of ‘‘NonStandard Mixes’’

Comment 10: Treatment of Expalsa’s 

Expenses for Returned Shipments 

Comment 11: Expalsa’s Post-Petition Filing 

Billing Adjustments 

Comment 12: Treatment of Certain Expalsa 

Sales to Italy as Samples 

Comment 13: Rebates on Expalsa’s Italian 

Sales 

Comment 14: Cost Changes for Expalsa’s 

Minor Corrections of Preservative Code 

Comment 15: Payments to Exporklore’s Sales 

Agent as Rebates or Commissions 

Comment 16: Methodology for Calculating 

Exporklore’s Payment to Agent for Italian 

Sales 

Comment 17: Ocean Freight Revenue and 

Expense Treatment on Exporklore C&F 

Sales 

Comment 18: Exporklore Bank Charges 

Comment 19: Exporklore’s Raw Material 

Costs 

Comment 20: Currency Adjustment in 

Calculation of Exporklore’s Financial 

Expense Ratio 

Comment 21: Treatment of Commissions 

Paid to Affiliates in Exporklore’s Labor 

Costs 

Comment 22: Spain as the Appropriate 

Comparison Market for Promarisco 

Comment 23: Classification and Exclusion of 

Certain Promarisco Spanish Sales as 

Samples 

Comment 24: Billing Adjustments and Date 

of Sale for Certain Promarisco U.S. LongTerm Contract Sales 

Comment 25: Bonus Payment to Promarisco’s 

Spanish Sales Agent 

Comment 26: Calculation of Promarisco’s 

Indirect Selling Expense Ratio 

Comment 27: Adjustment for Unreconciled 

Differences in Promarisco’s Cost of 

Manufacture 

Comment 28: Input Adjustment for 

Promarisco’s Shrimp Purchases from 

Affiliated Farms 

76916 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 

1The petitioners in this investigation are the Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (an ad hoc

coalition representative of U.S. producers of frozen 

and canned warmwater shrimp and harvesters of 

wild-caught warmwater shrimp), Versaggi Shrimp 

Corporation, and Indian Ridge Shrimp Company.

2This brief related only to scope issues.

3 In addition to these scope determinations, the 

Department previously made five other scope 

determinations: (1) On May 21, 2004, the 

Department declined to expand the scope of this 

investigation to include fresh (never frozen) shrimp; 

(2) on July 2, 2004, pursuant to a request from 

Ocean Duke Corporation, an interested party in this 

investigation, the Department found that its 

‘‘Seafood Mix’’ is excluded from the scope of this 

investigation; (3) on July 2, 2004, the Department 

found that salad shrimp, sold in counts of 250 

pieces or higher, are included within the scope of 

this investigation; (4) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that Macrobrachium rosenbergii

and organic shrimp are included within the scope 

of this investigation; and (5) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that peeled shrimp are included 

within the scope of this investigation.

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

includes the telson and the uropods.

Comment 29: Adjustment of Promarisco’s 

G&A Expense Ratio to Exclude Packing 

Expenses

[FR Doc. 04–28169 Filed 12–21–04; 10:32 

am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–840] 

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

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2004.

SUMMARY: On August 4, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from India. 

The period of investigation is October 1, 

2002, through September 30, 2003. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 

in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Eastwood or Jill Pollack, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3874 or 

(202) 482–4593, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Final Determination 

We determine that certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from India is 

being, or is likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV), as provided in section 735 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act). The estimated margins of sales of 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Continuation of 

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. In addition, we determine 

that there is no reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

India. 

Case History 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on August 

4, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India,

69 FR 47111 (Aug. 4, 2004) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

Since the preliminary determination, 

the following events have occurred. 

During the period July through October 

2004, various interested parties, 

including the petitioners,1 submitted 

comments on the scope of this and the 

companion investigations of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp.

From August through October 2004, 

we conducted verifications of the 

questionnaire responses of the three 

respondents in this case, Devi Sea Foods 

Limited (Devi), Hindustan Lever 

Limited (HLL), and Nekkanti Seafoods 

Limited (Nekkanti). 

In October 2004, we received case and 

rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, the 

respondents, and Xian-Ning Seafood 

Co., Ltd. (Xian-Ning), an interested 

party in the companion investigation of 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp 

from Thailand.2 The Department held a 

public hearing on November 3, 2004, at 

the request of Devi, HLL, Nekkanti, and 

the American Breaded Shrimp 

Processors, an interested party in this 

investigation. On November 23, 2004, 

the Department convened a public 

hearing on scope issues.

On November 29, 2004, the 

Department made final scope 

determinations with respect to shrimp 

scampi and dusted and battered shrimp. 

See the November 29, 2004, memoranda 

from Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. 

Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

entitled ‘‘Scope Clarification on Shrimp 

Scampi’’; and ‘‘Scope Clarification on 

Dusted Shrimp and Battered Shrimp,’’

respectively. See also the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section of this notice, 

below, for further discussion.3

Also on November 29, 2004, the 

Department clarified that a shrimp 

sauce produced by a company in the 

companion investigation of frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China, Lee Kum 

Kee (USA) Inc., is not covered by the 

scope of that investigation. See the 

November 29, 2004, Memorandum from 

Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, entitled ‘‘Scope 

Clarification on Lee Kum Kee’s Shrimp 

Sauce.’’

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

October 1, 2002, through September 30, 

2003. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The various scope issues are 

discussed in the ‘‘Case History’’ section 

of this notice and the separate scope 

memoranda. All other issues raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 

this investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memorandum) from Barbara 

E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated December 

17, 2004, which is adopted by this 

notice. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of the issues raised in this 

investigation and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the 

main Commerce Building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes certain warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether frozen or canned, 

wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farmraised (produced by aquaculture), headon or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tailon or tail-off,4 deveined or not 

76916 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 

1The petitioners in this investigation are the Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (an ad hoc

coalition representative of U.S. producers of frozen 

and canned warmwater shrimp and harvesters of 

wild-caught warmwater shrimp), Versaggi Shrimp 

Corporation, and Indian Ridge Shrimp Company.

2This brief related only to scope issues.

3 In addition to these scope determinations, the 

Department previously made five other scope 

determinations: (1) On May 21, 2004, the 

Department declined to expand the scope of this 

investigation to include fresh (never frozen) shrimp; 

(2) on July 2, 2004, pursuant to a request from 

Ocean Duke Corporation, an interested party in this 

investigation, the Department found that its 

‘‘Seafood Mix’’ is excluded from the scope of this 

investigation; (3) on July 2, 2004, the Department 

found that salad shrimp, sold in counts of 250 

pieces or higher, are included within the scope of 

this investigation; (4) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that Macrobrachium rosenbergii

and organic shrimp are included within the scope 

of this investigation; and (5) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that peeled shrimp are included 

within the scope of this investigation.

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

includes the telson and the uropods.

Comment 29: Adjustment of Promarisco’s 

G&A Expense Ratio to Exclude Packing 

Expenses

[FR Doc. 04–28169 Filed 12–21–04; 10:32 

am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–840] 

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

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2004.

SUMMARY: On August 4, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from India. 

The period of investigation is October 1, 

2002, through September 30, 2003. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 

in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Eastwood or Jill Pollack, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–3874 or 

(202) 482–4593, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Final Determination 

We determine that certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from India is 

being, or is likely to be, sold in the 

United States at less than fair value 

(LTFV), as provided in section 735 of 

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

Act). The estimated margins of sales of 

LTFV are shown in the ‘‘Continuation of 

Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. In addition, we determine 

that there is no reasonable basis to 

believe or suspect that critical 

circumstances exist with respect to 

imports of the subject merchandise from 

India. 

Case History 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on August 

4, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India,

69 FR 47111 (Aug. 4, 2004) (Preliminary 

Determination). 

Since the preliminary determination, 

the following events have occurred. 

During the period July through October 

2004, various interested parties, 

including the petitioners,1 submitted 

comments on the scope of this and the 

companion investigations of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp.

From August through October 2004, 

we conducted verifications of the 

questionnaire responses of the three 

respondents in this case, Devi Sea Foods 

Limited (Devi), Hindustan Lever 

Limited (HLL), and Nekkanti Seafoods 

Limited (Nekkanti). 

In October 2004, we received case and 

rebuttal briefs from the petitioners, the 

respondents, and Xian-Ning Seafood 

Co., Ltd. (Xian-Ning), an interested 

party in the companion investigation of 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp 

from Thailand.2 The Department held a 

public hearing on November 3, 2004, at 

the request of Devi, HLL, Nekkanti, and 

the American Breaded Shrimp 

Processors, an interested party in this 

investigation. On November 23, 2004, 

the Department convened a public 

hearing on scope issues.

On November 29, 2004, the 

Department made final scope 

determinations with respect to shrimp 

scampi and dusted and battered shrimp. 

See the November 29, 2004, memoranda 

from Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. 

Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

entitled ‘‘Scope Clarification on Shrimp 

Scampi’’; and ‘‘Scope Clarification on 

Dusted Shrimp and Battered Shrimp,’’

respectively. See also the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section of this notice, 

below, for further discussion.3

Also on November 29, 2004, the 

Department clarified that a shrimp 

sauce produced by a company in the 

companion investigation of frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China, Lee Kum 

Kee (USA) Inc., is not covered by the 

scope of that investigation. See the 

November 29, 2004, Memorandum from 

Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, entitled ‘‘Scope 

Clarification on Lee Kum Kee’s Shrimp 

Sauce.’’

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation (POI) is 

October 1, 2002, through September 30, 

2003. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The various scope issues are 

discussed in the ‘‘Case History’’ section 

of this notice and the separate scope 

memoranda. All other issues raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 

this investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memorandum) from Barbara 

E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

James J. Jochum, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated December 

17, 2004, which is adopted by this 

notice. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of the issues raised in this 

investigation and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the 

main Commerce Building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes certain warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether frozen or canned, 

wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farmraised (produced by aquaculture), headon or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tailon or tail-off,4 deveined or not 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 76917

deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise 

processed in frozen or canned form.

The frozen or canned warmwater 

shrimp and prawn products included in 

the scope of this investigation, 

regardless of definitions in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

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

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through either 

freezing or canning 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 

investigation. 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 

investigation.

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns 

(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 

(0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 

shrimp and prawns in prepared meals 

(1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) certain dusted shrimp; and 

(7) certain battered shrimp. Dusted 

shrimp is a shrimp-based product: (1) 

That is produced from fresh (or thawedfrom-frozen) and peeled shrimp; (2) to 

which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of rice or wheat 

flour of at least 95 percent purity has 

been applied; (3) with the entire surface 

of the shrimp flesh thoroughly and 

evenly coated with the flour; (4) with 

the non-shrimp content of the end 

product constituting between four and 

10 percent of the product’s total weight 

after being dusted, but prior to being 

frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF 

freezing immediately after application 

of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is 

a shrimp-based product that, when 

dusted in accordance with the 

definition of dusting above, is coated 

with a wet viscous layer containing egg 

and/or milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by this 

investigation 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, 

1605.20.10.30, and 1605.20.10.40. 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 investigation is dispositive. 

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations. For 

a discussion of these changes, see the 

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the 

Decision Memorandum. 

Critical Circumstances 

In our preliminary determination, we 

found that critical circumstances existed 

with respect to HLL’s exports of the 

subject merchandise, but not for exports 

made by Devi, Nekkanti, or the 

companies subject to the ‘‘all others’’

rate. See Preliminary Determination, 69 

FR at 47118–47119. We received 

comments on our preliminary finding of 

critical circumstances from HLL, which 

argues that we should no longer find 

that critical circumstances exist for it 

because the increase in imports shown 

in the Department’s critical 

circumstances analysis was the result of 

seasonality. We also received comments 

from the petitioners, who support the 

preliminary finding of critical 

circumstances for HLL. 

To determine whether there is a 

history of injurious dumping of the 

merchandise under investigation, in 

accordance with section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) 

of the Act, the Department normally 

considers evidence of an existing 

antidumping duty order on the subject 

merchandise in the United States or 

elsewhere to be sufficient. See 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars From Ukraine and 

Moldova, 65 FR 70696 (Nov. 27, 2000). 

With regard to imports of certain frozen 

and canned warmwater shrimp from 

India, the petitioners make no statement 

concerning a history of dumping. We 

are not aware of any antidumping order 

in the United States or in any country 

on certain frozen and canned 

warmwater shrimp from India. For this 

reason, the Department does not find a 

history of injurious dumping of the 

subject merchandise from India 

pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(i) of the 

Act. 

To determine whether the person by 

whom, or for whose account, the 

merchandise was imported knew or 

should have known that the exporter 

was selling the subject merchandise at 

less than its fair value and that there 

was likely to be material injury by 

reason of such sales in accordance with 

section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act, the 

Department normally considers margins 

of 25 percent or more for export price 

(EP) sales or 15 percent or more for 

constructed export price transactions 

sufficient to impute knowledge of 

dumping. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 62 FR 31972, 31978 

(Oct. 19, 2001). Each of the respondents 

made only EP sales during the POI and 

the final dumping margin calculated for 

each respondent, including HLL, is less 

than 25 percent. Therefore, we 

determine that there is an insufficient 

basis to find that importers should have 

known that the respondents were selling 

the subject merchandise at less than its 

fair value and that there was likely to be 

material injury by reason of such sales 

pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(A)(ii) of 

the Act. 

Because the requirements of section 

735(a)(3)(A) of the Act are not met, we 

determine that critical circumstances do 

not exist for imports of subject 

merchandise from India. For further 

discussion, see the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 20. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the respondents for use in 

our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

the respondents. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

76918 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 

liquidation of all entries of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp 

from India that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after August 4, 2004, 

the publication date of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register. 

However, because we find that critical 

circumstances do not exist with regard 

to imports by HLL of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from India, 

we will instruct CBP to terminate the 

retroactive suspension of liquidation for 

HLL between May 6, 2004 (90 days prior 

to the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination), and August 

4, 2004, which was instituted due to the 

preliminary affirmative critical 

circumstances finding for this 

respondent. CBP shall also release any 

bond or other security, and refund any 

cash deposit required, under section 

733(d)(1)(B) of the Act with respect to 

HLL’s entries of the merchandise the 

liquidation of which was suspended 

retroactively under section 733(e)(2) of 

the Act. For entries on or after August 

4, 2004, CBP shall continue to require 

a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 

based on the estimated weightedaverage dumping margins shown below. 

The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice.

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average 

margin percentage 

Devi Sea Foods Ltd. ....... 5.02 

Hindustan Lever Ltd. ...... 13.42 

Nekkanti Seafoods Ltd. .. 9.71 

All Others ........................ 9.45 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(5)(A), we have based the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate on the weighted average of 

the dumping margins calculated for the 

exporters/manufacturers investigated in 

this proceeding. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

these imports are causing material 

injury, or threat of material injury, to an 

industry in the United States. If the ITC 

determines that material injury or threat 

of injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

officials to assess antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of return/

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act.

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

James Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comments 

1. Offsets for Non-Dumped Sales 

2. Methodology for Calculating the ‘‘All 

Others’’ Rate 

3. Use of Container Weight as a Matching 

Characteristic 

4. Position of Species in the Matching 

Hierarchy 

5. ‘‘As Sold’’ Versus ‘‘HLSO’’ Product 

Comparisons 

6. Use of Forward Exchange Contracts to 

Make Currency Conversions 

7. Revenue from the Duty Entitlement 

Passbook Scheme 

8. Export House Revenue 

9. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary 

Determination 

10. Selection of Comparison Market for Devi 

11. Credit Expenses for Devi 

12. Third Country Sale Outside the Ordinary 

Course of Trade for HLL 

13. Glazing Adjustment for HLL 

14. Filler Adjustment for HLL 

15. Bank Charges for HLL 

16. General and Administrative Expenses for 

HLL 

17. Level at Which Financing Expenses Are 

Calculated for HLL 

18. Offset to Financing Expenses for HLL 

19. Cost Reconciliation for HLL 

20. Critical Circumstances for HLL 

21. Additional Revenue for Nekkanti

[FR Doc. 04–28170 Filed 12–21–04; 10:32 

am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–822] 

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

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2004.

SUMMARY: On August 4, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand. The period of investigation is 

October 1, 2002, through September 30, 

2003. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 

in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina 

Itkin or Alice Gibbons, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0656 or (202) 482–

0498, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Final Determination 

We determine that certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand is being, or is likely to be, sold 

in the United States at less-than-fairvalue (LTFV), as provided in section 

735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales of LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. In 

addition, we determine that there is no 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that critical circumstances exist with 

respect to imports of the subject 

merchandise from Thailand. 

Case History 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on August 

4, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Negative Critical 


76918 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 

liquidation of all entries of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp 

from India that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after August 4, 2004, 

the publication date of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register. 

However, because we find that critical 

circumstances do not exist with regard 

to imports by HLL of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from India, 

we will instruct CBP to terminate the 

retroactive suspension of liquidation for 

HLL between May 6, 2004 (90 days prior 

to the date of publication of the 

preliminary determination), and August 

4, 2004, which was instituted due to the 

preliminary affirmative critical 

circumstances finding for this 

respondent. CBP shall also release any 

bond or other security, and refund any 

cash deposit required, under section 

733(d)(1)(B) of the Act with respect to 

HLL’s entries of the merchandise the 

liquidation of which was suspended 

retroactively under section 733(e)(2) of 

the Act. For entries on or after August 

4, 2004, CBP shall continue to require 

a cash deposit or the posting of a bond 

based on the estimated weightedaverage dumping margins shown below. 

The suspension of liquidation 

instructions will remain in effect until 

further notice.

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average 

margin percentage 

Devi Sea Foods Ltd. ....... 5.02 

Hindustan Lever Ltd. ...... 13.42 

Nekkanti Seafoods Ltd. .. 9.71 

All Others ........................ 9.45 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(5)(A), we have based the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate on the weighted average of 

the dumping margins calculated for the 

exporters/manufacturers investigated in 

this proceeding. 

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

these imports are causing material 

injury, or threat of material injury, to an 

industry in the United States. If the ITC 

determines that material injury or threat 

of injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

officials to assess antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of return/

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act.

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

James Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comments 

1. Offsets for Non-Dumped Sales 

2. Methodology for Calculating the ‘‘All 

Others’’ Rate 

3. Use of Container Weight as a Matching 

Characteristic 

4. Position of Species in the Matching 

Hierarchy 

5. ‘‘As Sold’’ Versus ‘‘HLSO’’ Product 

Comparisons 

6. Use of Forward Exchange Contracts to 

Make Currency Conversions 

7. Revenue from the Duty Entitlement 

Passbook Scheme 

8. Export House Revenue 

9. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary 

Determination 

10. Selection of Comparison Market for Devi 

11. Credit Expenses for Devi 

12. Third Country Sale Outside the Ordinary 

Course of Trade for HLL 

13. Glazing Adjustment for HLL 

14. Filler Adjustment for HLL 

15. Bank Charges for HLL 

16. General and Administrative Expenses for 

HLL 

17. Level at Which Financing Expenses Are 

Calculated for HLL 

18. Offset to Financing Expenses for HLL 

19. Cost Reconciliation for HLL 

20. Critical Circumstances for HLL 

21. Additional Revenue for Nekkanti

[FR Doc. 04–28170 Filed 12–21–04; 10:32 

am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–822] 

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

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 23, 2004.

SUMMARY: On August 4, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published its 

preliminary determination of sales at 

less than fair value of certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand. The period of investigation is 

October 1, 2002, through September 30, 

2003. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

changes in the margin calculations. 

Therefore, the final determination 

differs from the preliminary 

determination. The final weightedaverage dumping margins for the 

investigated companies are listed below 

in the section entitled ‘‘Final 

Determination Margins.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina 

Itkin or Alice Gibbons, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0656 or (202) 482–

0498, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Final Determination 

We determine that certain frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand is being, or is likely to be, sold 

in the United States at less-than-fairvalue (LTFV), as provided in section 

735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). The estimated 

margins of sales of LTFV are shown in 

the ‘‘Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation’’ section of this notice. In 

addition, we determine that there is no 

reasonable basis to believe or suspect 

that critical circumstances exist with 

respect to imports of the subject 

merchandise from Thailand. 

Case History 

The preliminary determination in this 

investigation was published on August 

4, 2004. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Negative Critical 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 76919

1The petitioners in this investigation are the Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (an ad hoc 

coalition representative of U.S. producers of frozen 

and canned warmwater shrimp and harvesters of 

wild-caught warmwater shrimp), Versaggi Shrimp 

Corporation, and Indian Ridge Shrimp Company.

2 In addition to these scope determinations, the 

Department previously made five other scope 

determinations: (1) On May 21, 2004, the 

Department declined to expand the scope of this 

investigation to include fresh (never frozen) shrimp; 

(2) on July 2, 2004, pursuant to a request from 

Ocean Duke Corporation, an interested party in this 

investigation, the Department found that its 

‘‘Seafood Mix’’ is excluded from the scope of this 

investigation; (3) on July 2, 2004, the Department 

found that salad shrimp, sold in counts of 250 

pieces or higher, are included within the scope of 

this investigation; (4) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that Macrobrachium rosenbergii

and organic shrimp are included within the scope 

of this investigation; and (5) on July 2, 2004, the 

Department found that peeled shrimp are included 

within the scope of this investigation.

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

includes the telson and the uropods.

Circumstances Determination: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

From Thailand, 69 FR 47100 (Aug. 4, 

2004) (Preliminary Determination). 

Since the preliminary determination, 

the following events have occurred. 

During the period July through October 

2004, various interested parties, 

including the petitioners,1 submitted 

comments on the scope of this and the 

concurrent investigations of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp.

In August and September 2004, we 

conducted verification of the 

questionnaire responses of the three 

respondents in this case, Andaman 

Seafood Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi Seafoods 

Co., Ltd., and Thailand Fishery Cold 

Storage Public Co., Ltd. (collectively 

‘‘the Rubicon Group’’); Thai I-Mei 

Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai I-Mei); and 

the Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. 

(UFP). 

In October and November 2004, we 

received case briefs from the petitioners, 

the respondents, and the Government of 

Thailand and Xian-Ning Seafood Co., 

Ltd., interested parties in this 

investigation, and rebuttal briefs from 

the petitioners, the Rubicon Group, and 

Thai I-Mei. Two of the respondents (i.e., 

the Rubicon Group and Thai I-Mei) and 

the American Breaded Shrimp 

Processors, an interested party, 

requested that a hearing be held by the 

Department. However, in November 

2004, the Department canceled the 

hearing because the Rubicon Group and 

Thai I-Mei withdrew their requests. See

the November 3, 2004, memorandum to 

the file from Alice Gibbons entitled, 

‘‘Cancellation of Public Hearing in the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation on 

Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand.’’ On November 

23, 2004, the Department convened a 

public hearing on scope issues. 

On November 29, 2004, the 

Department made final scope 

determinations with respect to shrimp 

scampi and dusted and battered shrimp. 

See the November 29, 2004, Memoranda 

from Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. 

Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration 

entitled ‘‘Scope Clarification on Shrimp 

Scampi’’; and ‘‘Scope Clarification on 

Dusted Shrimp and Battered Shrimp,’’

respectively. See also the ‘‘Scope of 

Investigation’’ section of this notice, 

below, for further discussion.2

Also on November 29, 2004, the 

Department clarified that a shrimp 

sauce produced by a company in the 

companion investigation of frozen and 

canned warmwater shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China, Lee Kum 

Kee (USA) Inc., is not covered by the 

scope of that investigation. See the 

November 29, 2004, Memorandum from 

Edward C. Yang to Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration entitled ‘‘Scope 

Clarification on Lee Kum Kee’s Shrimp 

Sauce.’’

Period of Investigation 

The period of investigation is October 

1, 2002, through September 30, 2003. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

The various scope issues are 

discussed in the ‘‘Case History’’ section 

of this notice and the separate scope 

memoranda. All other issues raised in 

the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in 

this investigation are addressed in the 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum’’

(Decision Memorandum) from Barbara 

E. Tillman, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration to 

James Jochum, Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, dated December 

17, 2004, which is adopted by this 

notice. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of the issues raised in this 

investigation and the corresponding 

recommendations in this public 

memorandum, which is on file in the 

Central Records Unit, room B–099 of the 

main Commerce Building. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/

index.html. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this investigation 

includes certain warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether frozen or canned, 

wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farmraised (produced by aquaculture), headon or head-off, shell-on or peeled, tailon or tail-off,3 deveined or not 

deveined, cooked or raw, or otherwise 

processed in frozen or canned form.

The frozen or canned warmwater 

shrimp and prawn products included in 

the scope of this investigation, 

regardless of definitions in the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

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

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through either 

freezing or canning 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 

investigation. 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 

investigation. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns 

(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 

(0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 

shrimp and prawns in prepared meals 

(1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) dusted shrimp; and (7) 

battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a 

shrimp-based product: (1) That is 

produced from fresh (or thawed-fromfrozen) 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 

76920 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 246 / Thursday, December 23, 2004 / Notices 

4The following companies are part of the 

Rubicon Group and thus have been assigned the 

same dumping margin: Andaman Seafood Co., Ltd., 

Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., Ltd., Chanthaburi 

Seafoods Co., Ltd., Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd., 

Thailand Fishery Cold Storage Public Co., Ltd., 

Thai International Seafood Co., Ltd., Wales & 

Company Universe, Ltd., and Y2K Frozen Food Co., 

Ltd.

coated with the flour; (4) with the nonshrimp content of the end product 

constituting between four and 10 

percent of the product’s total weight 

after being dusted, but prior to being 

frozen; and (5) that is subjected to IQF 

freezing immediately after application 

of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is 

a shrimp-based product that, when 

dusted in accordance with the 

definition of dusting above, is coated 

with a wet viscous layer containing egg 

and/or milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by this 

investigation 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, 

1605.20.10.30, and 1605.20.10.40. 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 investigation is dispositive.

Changes Since the Preliminary 

Determination 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received and our findings at 

verification, we have made certain 

changes to the margin calculations. For 

a discussion of these changes, see the 

‘‘Margin Calculations’’ section of the 

Decision Memorandum. 

Critical Circumstances 

In our preliminary determination, we 

found that critical circumstances did 

not exist with respect to imports of the 

subject merchandise from Thailand 

because the requirements of section 

733(e)(1)(A) of the Act had not been 

met. See Preliminary Determination, 69 

FR at 47109–10. For the final 

determination, we continue to find that 

critical circumstances do not exist for 

the same reasons, in accordance with 

section 735(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, we verified the information 

submitted by the respondents for use in 

our final determination. We used 

standard verification procedures 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, and 

original source documents provided by 

the respondents. 

Continuation of Suspension of 

Liquidation 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we are directing 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) to continue to suspend 

liquidation of all entries of certain 

frozen and canned warmwater shrimp 

from Thailand that are entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after August 4, 2004, 

the publication date of the preliminary 

determination in the Federal Register. 

CBP shall continue to require a cash 

deposit or the posting of a bond based 

on the estimated weighted-average 

dumping margins shown below. The 

suspension of liquidation instructions 

will remain in effect until further notice. 

Final Determination Margins 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows:

Exporter/manufacturer 4 Weighted-average 

margin percentage 

Andaman Seafood Co., 

Ltd. .............................. 5.79 

Chanthaburi Seafoods 

Co., Ltd. ...................... 5.79 

Chanthaburi Frozen Food 

Co., Ltd. ...................... 5.79 

Phattana Seafood Co., 

Ltd. .............................. 5.79 

Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods 

Co., Ltd. ...................... 6.20 

Thailand Fishery Cold 

Storage Public Co., 

Ltd. .............................. 5.79 

Thai International Seafood Co., Ltd. .............. 5.79 

The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. ............... 6.82 

Wales & Company Universe, Ltd. ................... 5.79 

Y2K Frozen Food Co., 

Ltd. .............................. 5.79 

All Others ........................ 6.03 

In accordance with section 

735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we have based 

the ‘‘all others’’ rate on the weighted 

average of the dumping margins 

calculated for the exporters/

manufacturers investigated in this 

proceeding.

ITC Notification 

In accordance with section 735(d) of 

the Act, we have notified the 

International Trade Commission (ITC) of 

our determination. As our final 

determination is affirmative, the ITC 

will determine within 45 days whether 

these imports are causing material 

injury, or threat of material injury, to an 

industry in the United States. If the ITC 

determines that material injury or threat 

of injury does not exist, the proceeding 

will be terminated and all securities 

posted will be refunded or canceled. If 

the ITC determines that such injury 

does exist, the Department will issue an 

antidumping duty order directing CBP 

officials to assess antidumping duties on 

all imports of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the effective 

date of the suspension of liquidation. 

This notice serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

disposition of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

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

written notification of return/

destruction of APO materials or 

conversion to judicial protective order is 

hereby requested. Failure to comply 

with the regulations and the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the 

Act.

Dated: December 17, 2004. 

James Jochum, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

Appendix—Issues in the Decision 

Memo 

Comments 

1. Offsets for Non-Dumped Sales 

2. Revenue from the Thai Government Duty 

Compensation Program 

3. Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary 

Determination 

4. Exclusion of Broken Shrimp from the 

Margin Calculations 

5. Whether to Grant a Constructed Export 

Price (CEP) Offset for the Rubicon Group 

6. Allocation of Indirect Selling Expenses for 

the Rubicon Group 

7. Treatment of Transportation Expenses for 

the Rubicon Group 

8. Double Counting in the Calculation of 

Financial Ratios for the Rubicon Group 

9. Verification Corrections for the Rubicon 

Group 

10. Date-of-Sale Methodology for Thai I-Mei 

11. Count Sizes for Thai I-Mei 

12. Appropriate Denominator to Use for 

General and Administrative (G&A) and 

Interest Calculations for Thai I-Mei 

13. Adverse Facts Available (AFA) Cost 

Adjustments for Thai I-Mei 

14. Calculation of Constructed Value (CV) 

Profit for Thai I-Mei 

15. Adjustment to Cost Offset Reported for 

UFP

[FR Doc. 04–28171 Filed 12–21–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P


B-1

APPENDIX B

CALENDAR OF THE PUBLIC HEARING

B-3

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade Commission’s

hearing:

Subject: Certain Frozen or Canned Warmwater Shrimp and Prawns from

Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and Vietnam

InvS. Nos.: 731-TA-1063-1068 (Final)

Date and Time: December 1, 2004 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with these investigations in the Main Hearing Room (room 101),

500 E Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

CONGRESSIONAL WITNESS:

The Honorable Thad Cochran, United States Senator, State of Mississippi

STATE GOVERNMENT WITNESSES:

The Honorable John Roussel, Assistant Secretary, Louisiana Department of Wildlife 

and Fisheries, State of Louisiana

The Honorable Burton P. Guidry, Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana Department 

of Justice, State of Louisiana

The Honorable David J. Camardelle, Mayor, Town of Grand Isle, Louisiana; and

President and Director, Grand Isle Independent Levee Board

The Honorable Kevin Belanger, CEO, South Central Planning & Development Commission,

Houma, Louisiana

The Honorable Don Schwab, Terrebonne Parish President, Houma, Louisiana

The Honorable Charlotte A. Randolph, Lafourche Parish President, Thibodaux, Louisiana
B-4

In Support of the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties:

Dewey Ballantine LLP

 Washington, D.C.

 on behalf of

Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee

Versaggi Shrimp Corporation

Indian Ridge Shrimp Company

Jonathan Applebaum, President, Penguin Frozen Foods

Andrew Blanchard, President, Pearl Inc.

Kimberly Chauvin, Owner, Mariah Jade Shrimp Company

Sal Versaggi, Owner, Versaggi Shrimp Company

David Cook, Vice President, Specialty Seafood Trade, Bumble Bee Seafoods

Patrick Staves, Assistant General Manager and Controller, Bumble Bee Seafoods

Richard Gollot, Secretary and Treasurer, Golden Gulf Coast Packing Company, Inc.

Phoung Dang, Commercial Shrimp Fisherman, Biloxi, Mississippi

Scott St. Pierre, Commercial Shrimp Fisherman, Golden Meadows, Louisiana

Craig Wallis, Commercial Shrimp Trawler Owner and Operator, Palacios, Texas

Susan Hester, Economist, Dewey Ballantine LLP

Bradford L. Ward )

Kevin M. Dempsey ) – OF COUNSEL

Nathaniel M. Rickard )

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties:

Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld LLP

 Washington, D.C.

 on behalf of

National Chamber of Aquaculture (Ecuador)

American Seafood Distributors Association

George Chamberlain, President, Global Aquaculture Alliance

Russ Mentzer, President and CEO, King & Prince Seafood Corporation

Bill Herzig, Vice President, Seafood Purchasing, Darden Restaurants, Inc.

Peter Redmond, Vice President/Divisional Merchandising Manager, 

Deli/Seafood, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Chad Bown, Assistant Professor, Economics, Brandeis University

Daniel W. Klett, Economist, Capital Trade, Inc.

Warren E. Connelly ) – OF COUNSEL Jarrod Goldfeder )
B-5

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties (continued):

Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg, P.A.

 Washington, D.C.

 on behalf of

Coalition of Shrimp Exporters/Producers of South China 

Seatech Corporation

Paula Stern, Chairwoman, The Stern Group

Lars Liabo, General Manager, Kontali Analyse AS

John Wendt, President, Seatech Corporation

Thomas V. Vakerics ) – OF COUNSEL

deKieffer & Horgan

 Washington, D.C.

 on behalf of

Xian-Ning Seafood Co., Ltd.

John J. Kenkel ) – OF COUNSEL

Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP

 Washington, D.C.

 on behalf of

Thai Frozen Foods Association and its individual members

Vietnam Shrimp Committee of the Vietnam Association

of Seafood Exporters and Producers and its

individual member companies

Kenneth J. Pierce ) – OF COUNSEL Matthew R. Nicely )

Cameron & Hornbostel, LLP

 Washington, D.C.

 on behalf of

Association of Brazilian Shrimp Farmers (“ABCC”)

Eduardo Rodrigues, Manager, ABCC

Alexander W. Sierck ) – OF COUNSEL
B-6

In Opposition to the Imposition of

 Antidumping Duties (continued):

Garvey Schubert Barer

 Washington, D.C.

 on behalf of

Seafood Exporters Association of India (“SEAI”)

Nagesh Motamarri, Finance Director, Nekkanti Seafoods Limited

K. Shivakumar, Independent Consultant

Lizbeth R. Levinson ) – OF COUNSEL
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Warmwater shrimp and prawns: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2001-03 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,006,617 1,046,548 1,211,618 455,666 519,252 20.4 4.0 15.8 14.0

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 15.3 13.2 12.0 10.2 8.6 -3.3 -2.1 -1.2 -1.6

 Importers' share (1):

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 3.7 4.0 6.6 2.7 1.8 1.6 0.2 -3.9

 China (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.6 6.1 6.0 9.6 8.7 0.4 0.4 -0.0 -0.9

 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 9.2 8.2 9.2 7.8 1.1 2.1 -1.0 -1.4

 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 23.7 23.2 22.8 25.0 -6.3 -5.8 -0.5 2.2

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.2 9.3 10.3 10.3 8.6 3.0 2.0 1.0 -1.7

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (nonsubject) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.2 24.7 22.4 23.6 27.7 -4.8 -2.4 -2.4 4.0

 Subtotal (nonsubject) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . 84.7 86.8 88.0 89.8 91.4 3.3 2.1 1.2 1.6

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,530,423 4,070,679 4,424,132 1,697,635 1,697,526 -2.3 -10.1 8.7 -0.0

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . 20.0 16.3 15.4 13.3 12.0 -4.7 -3.7 -0.9 -1.3

 Importers' share (1):

 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 2.3 2.3 3.9 1.7 0.8 0.8 0.0 -2.2

 China (subject) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ecuador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 4.9 4.9 7.7 7.1 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 -0.7

 India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 9.0 9.3 10.2 9.2 3.4 3.1 0.3 -1.1

 Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.4 24.3 22.5 22.7 22.2 -5.9 -4.2 -1.8 -0.6

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.6 12.0 13.6 14.0 13.1 5.0 3.4 1.6 -1.0

 Subtotal (subject) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 China (nonsubject) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 24.0 22.1 22.7 26.8 -4.4 -2.5 -1.9 4.1

 Subtotal (nonsubject) . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . 80.0 83.7 84.6 86.7 88.0 4.7 3.7 0.9 1.3

U.S. imports from:

 Brazil:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,638 39,074 48,023 30,245 14,143 121.9 80.6 22.9 -53.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,115 93,061 103,100 65,977 29,292 53.6 38.7 10.8 -55.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.10 $2.38 $2.15 $2.18 $2.07 -30.8 -23.2 -9.9 -5.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 960 1,644 1,617 1,350 2,414 68.4 71.1 -1.6 78.9

 China (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ecuador:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56,585 63,351 73,112 43,856 45,272 29.2 12.0 15.4 3.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222,543 200,371 214,873 131,559 119,927 -3.4 -10.0 7.2 -8.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.93 $3.16 $2.94 $3.00 $2.65 -25.3 -19.6 -7.1 -11.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 2,796 4,123 5,414 3,248 4,064 93.6 47.5 31.3 25.1

 India:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,794 96,654 99,180 41,812 40,486 38.1 34.6 2.6 -3.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266,916 367,436 412,087 173,804 155,433 54.4 37.7 12.2 -10.6

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.72 $3.80 $4.15 $4.16 $3.84 11.8 2.3 9.3 -7.6

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 7,512 6,607 11,156 7,752 7,059 48.5 -12.0 68.9 -8.9

 Thailand:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296,422 247,651 281,011 103,681 129,823 -5.2 -16.5 13.5 25.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,288,839 988,432 996,171 385,787 376,144 -22.7 -23.3 0.8 -2.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.35 $3.99 $3.54 $3.72 $2.90 -18.5 -8.2 -11.2 -22.1

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 42,126 41,959 55,742 43,180 46,537 32.3 -0.4 32.8 7.8

 Vietnam:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,818 96,996 124,503 47,017 44,548 71.0 33.2 28.4 -5.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389,556 487,952 602,915 238,406 221,936 54.8 25.3 23.6 -6.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.35 $5.03 $4.84 $5.07 $4.98 -9.5 -6.0 -3.7 -1.7

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 10,417 12,989 17,885 16,121 20,500 71.7 24.7 37.7 27.2

 Subtotal (subject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.

C-3
Table C-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp and prawns: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2001-03 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

U.S. imports from:

 China (nonsubject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273,533 258,802 270,888 107,741 143,630 -1.0 -5.4 4.7 33.3

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,200,942 975,411 977,973 384,979 455,388 -18.6 -18.8 0.3 18.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.39 $3.77 $3.61 $3.57 $3.17 -17.8 -14.2 -4.2 -11.3

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 19,760 20,734 20,168 14,874 18,722 2.1 4.9 -2.7 25.9

 Subtotal (nonsubject):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 852,677 908,482 1,066,168 409,368 474,670 25.0 6.5 17.4 16.0

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,623,717 3,407,963 3,744,881 1,471,239 1,493,784 3.3 -6.0 9.9 1.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.25 $3.75 $3.51 $3.59 $3.15 -17.4 -11.7 -6.4 -12.4

 Ending inventory quantity . . . 88,713 100,314 133,556 97,064 114,021 50.5 13.1 33.1 17.5

U.S. processors':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Inventories/total shipments (1) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Productivity (pounds per hour) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Net sales (3):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss) . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit operating income or (loss) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

Calculated U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153,940 138,066 145,450 46,298 44,582 -5.5 -10.3 5.3 -3.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 906,706 662,715 679,251 226,396 203,742 -25.1 -26.9 2.5 -10.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.89 $4.80 $4.67 $4.89 $4.57 -20.7 -18.5 -2.7 -6.5

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Not available.

 (3) Unit income-and-loss calculations exclude ***, which reported values but not quantities.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, National Marine Fisheries Services statistics,

and official Commerce statistics.

C-4
Table C-2

Warmwater shrimp and prawns (excluding canned): Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *
Table C-3

Warmwater shrimp and prawns: Summary data concerning selected U.S. processors (1), 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2001-03 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04

U.S. processors':

 Average capacity quantity . . . . 304,995 304,820 305,195 152,883 152,883 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . 142,883 132,646 138,062 52,004 49,748 -3.4 -7.2 4.1 -4.3

 Capacity utilization (2) . . . . . . . 46.8 43.5 45.2 34.0 32.5 -1.6 -3.3 1.7 -1.5

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118,271 112,412 117,350 54,691 51,452 -0.8 -5.0 4.4 -5.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482,481 418,809 383,562 176,550 156,217 -20.5 -13.2 -8.4 -11.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $4.08 $3.73 $3.27 $3.23 $3.04 -19.9 -8.7 -12.3 -5.9

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,772 2,547 3,266 1,434 1,268 17.8 -8.1 28.2 -11.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,141 7,763 8,499 3,708 3,308 -7.0 -15.1 9.5 -10.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.30 $3.05 $2.60 $2.59 $2.61 -21.1 -7.6 -14.6 0.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 23,696 23,886 28,935 19,499 24,414 22.1 0.8 21.1 25.2

 Inventories/total shipments (2) 19.6 20.8 24.0 34.7 46.3 4.4 1.2 3.2 11.6

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . 2,180 1,802 1,616 1,431 1,319 -25.9 -17.3 -10.3 -7.8

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . 3,390 3,235 2,973 1,212 1,131 -12.3 -4.6 -8.1 -6.7

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . 31,671 30,508 29,425 12,778 11,762 -7.1 -3.7 -3.5 -8.0

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9.30 $9.39 $9.86 $10.50 $10.36 6.0 0.9 5.0 -1.3

 Productivity (pounds per hour) 40.1 39.3 44.6 40.9 42.3 11.0 -2.0 13.3 3.7

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.23 $0.24 $0.22 $0.26 $0.24 -4.7 3.0 -7.4 -4.8

 Net sales (3):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139,732 130,434 136,862 54,806 50,098 -2.1 -6.7 4.9 -8.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499,628 433,306 406,055 181,668 156,598 -18.7 -13.3 -6.3 -13.8

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.50 $3.27 $2.95 $3.30 $3.11 -15.6 -6.5 -9.8 -5.7

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . 459,608 399,457 370,652 163,752 138,140 -19.4 -13.1 -7.2 -15.6

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . 40,020 33,849 35,403 17,916 18,458 -11.5 -15.4 4.6 3.0

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . 35,659 33,980 34,179 15,886 14,170 -4.2 -4.7 0.6 -10.8

 Operating income or (loss) . . . 4,361 (131) 1,224 2,030 4,288 -71.9 (4) (4) 111.2

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . 5,942 5,557 2,651 1,895 989 -55.4 -6.5 -52.3 -47.8

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.22 $3.01 $2.70 $2.97 $2.74 -16.3 -6.6 -10.4 -7.7

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . $0.24 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 $0.28 4.0 4.0 -0.1 -1.3

 Unit operating income or (loss) $0.04 $0.02 $0.01 $0.04 $0.09 -73.9 -61.2 -32.7 107.9

 COGS/sales (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.0 92.2 91.3 90.1 88.2 -0.7 0.2 -0.9 -1.9

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 (0.0) 0.3 1.1 2.7 -0.6 -0.9 0.3 1.6

 (1) Excluding data for previously excluded, targeted related parties, and ***.

 (2) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (3) Unit income-and-loss calculations exclude ***, which reported values but not quantities.

 (4) Undefined. 

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
APPENDIX D

CANNED SHRIMP

 1

 See, Preliminary Shrimp Report, p. 13. U.S. producer, ***, and importers, ***, provided such data which are

presented in table D-1. *** production during the period examined was *** percent canned shrimp. Pricing data on

canned shrimp are presented in app. G, table G-10.

 2 In testimony at the Commission’s hearing in these investigations, Andrew Blanchard, President of Pearl, in

speaking of the differences between his frozen product and Bumble Bee’s shelf-stable product, stated:

“The product that we are cooking and putting in cans is a completely different animal than what

they're {Bumble Bee} talking about on the processed side. Theirs can be put up in the shelfs in a

dry storage state. Ours has to be kept frozen. Once you put it in the refrigerator overnight you can

just pop the can, open it up and, it's ready.”

Further, regarding the frozen/shelf-stable differences, Mr. Blanchard stated:

“Ours has to be remained at zero degree temperature to have it, to be shelf-stable. And his can be

at room temperature. But he retorts his through a process of retort. What we do, we just boil our

product. It's not going through a retort process. We boil it, we take it, we peel it, take it in heads

on. We peel it, we devein it. It goes through our boiler. And then it goes through a sequence of

graders. Then it's inspected and put into a one pound can, put a vacuum on it, then it's brought into

a blast freezer and it's cased out for distribution.”

See, testimony of Andrew Blanchard, President, Pearl, hearing transcript, pp. 150-151.

***.

D-3

CANNED SHRIMP

As noted earlier, the Commission, in its preliminary determinations, indicated that it would seek

trade, pricing, financial, and foreign industry data specifically pertaining to canned shrimp in the final

phase investigations.1

 Bumble Bee is the only U.S. producer of canned shrimp. Another U.S. firm, Pearl

Indian Ridge (Pearl) produces a canned product, but unlike the shelf-stable product produced by Bumble

Bee, Pearl’s is frozen after vacuum packing and canning; hence; it is a frozen product that has simply

been packaged in a can.2

 

Three firms, ***, provided import data on canned shrimp. In each instance, canned shrimp

accounted for *** percent of the reported imports. *** imported canned shrimp in 2001 and 2002 from

***. For the balance of the period examined, *** had no imports. In 2002, *** imports accounted for

*** percent of total canned shrimp imports. *** imports came from ***. In 2003, *** imports accounted

for *** percent of total canned shrimp imports. *** of *** imports came from *** and accounted for ***

percent of total canned shrimp imports in 2003. 

Importers Chicken of the Sea and Seatech both appeared at the Commission’s hearing to state

their belief that canned shrimp is a separate like product from frozen shrimp and that the U.S. industry

(Bumble Bee) is not suffering material injury. In challenging Bumble Bee’s contention that its

deteriorating financial condition was due to the loss of its private label business (primarily Chicken of the

Sea) to imports, Kevin McClain of Chicken of the Sea, stated, in part:
 3

 Chicken of the Sea posthearing brief, exhibit 6, affidavit of Kevin McClain, Vice President of Procurement,

Chicken of the Sea.

 4

 Petitioners’ posthearing brief, app. A, statement of David Cook, Vice President, Specialty Seafood Trade,

Bumble Bee, in response to a question from Chairman Stephen Koplan, pp. A-22-A-23.

D-4

Table D-1

Canned warmwater shrimp and prawns: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2001-03, January-June

2003, and January-June 2004

* * * * * * *

“After Bumble Bee bought Reuther’s, we suddenly found ourselves in a very difficult

position: our archrival was now our principal supplier of the four canned shrimp

products mentioned above. Our company management had a lot of qualms about this

situation because Bumble Bee took private label sales responsibility away from Mr. 

Reuther and handed it over to the Bumble Bee marketing department. Soon after the

takeover, we noticed that Bumble Bee had much less interest in making sure that we, as

one of its larger customers, were kept happy. We did not always get their best quality

products and on-time deliveries were less frequent. Also, we began receiving price

increases without a prior explanation or discussion. It became apparent that Bumble Bee

was trying to price us out of the market in order to gain competitive edge.”

Further, with regard to Chicken of the Sea’s shift to imported shrimp, Mr. McClain, stated:

“Before terminating our relationship with Reuther/Bumble Bee, we conducted an

intensive search for another domestic supplier of canned shrimp. However, we couldn’t

find one. Reuther’s was really the last of the major domestic shrimp canners. We,

therefore, had no choice but to turn to imports to fulfill the void left by the loss of

Reuther’s as a reliable supplier.

In 2000, we began sourcing canned shrimp from Seatech Corporation, which

became our exclusive supplier of these products following our purchase of the ‘Pacific

Pearl’ brand from CI Seafoods, Inc.”3

With respect to Bumble Bee’s view of Chicken of the Sea’s shift to imported shrimp, David Cook

of Bumble Bee stated, in part, “***.”4

With respect to foreign producers, two Indian and three Thai respondents provided data with

respect to their canned shrimp operations. Such data are presented in tables D-2 and D-3, respectively. 

The information provided by the Indian and Thai respondents shows that *** percent of Indian exports

and 0.1 percent of Thai exports to the United States were canned product in 2003. 

Table D-2

Canned warmwater shrimp and prawns: Data for processors in India, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and

January-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table D-3

Canned warmwater shrimp and prawns: Data for processors in Thailand, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and

January-June 2004

* * * * * * *
D-5

COMMENTS ON LIKE PRODUCT FACTORS

Questionnaire respondents were asked to comment on the six like product factors as they relate to

canned shrimp as a separate like product. U.S. producer *** and importers *** offered comments which

follow: 

* * * * * * *

E-1

APPENDIX E

PURCHASER COMPARISONS OF PURCHASING FACTORS FOR

WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM VARIOUS COUNTRIES

E-3

Table E-1

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

U.S. vs. Brazil1 U.S. vs. China1 U.S. vs. Ecuador1

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 1 2 4 1 6 10 2 3 10

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 0 0 7 1 3 13 1 3 11

Delivery terms 0 6 1 5 9 3 2 11 2

Delivery time 2 5 0 10 6 1 6 8 1

Discounts offered 1 6 0 0 14 3 1 12 2

Extension of credit 0 6 1 2 11 4 1 12 2

Lower price2 1 3 3 1 6 10 2 7 6

Minimum quantity requirements 1 6 0 3 12 2 5 10 0

Packaging 0 4 3 2 11 4 1 10 4

Product range 0 3 4 2 3 12 2 4 9

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 0 1 6 1 3 13 1 4 10

Quality meets your firm’s 

standards 0 2 5 1 4 12 2 4 9

Quality exceeds your firm’s 

standards 0 2 5 1 5 10 2 4 8

Reliability of supply 025349258

Taste/flavor profile 1 4 2 6 7 4 4 6 5

Transportation network 0 3 4 4 3 9 2 4 8

Lower U.S. transportation costs 2 5 0 7 10 0 4 9 1

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Table continued on next page.
E-4

Table E-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

U.S. vs. India1 U.S. vs. Thailand1 U.S. vs. Vietnam1

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 0 6 6 3 5 12 2 5 8

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 1 2 9 1 3 16 1 1 13

Delivery terms 2 9 1 3 14 3 2 10 3

Delivery time 5 7 0 9 9 2 7 7 1

Discounts offered 0 10 2 1 14 5 1 12 2

Extension of credit 0 10 2 2 15 3 1 11 3

Lower price2 0 4 8 1 8 11 1 6 8

Minimum quantity requirements 2 10 0 4 15 1 3 11 1

Packaging 0 9 3 1 12 7 1 8 6

Product range 0 3 9 1 5 14 1 4 10

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 1 3 8 1 3 16 1 1 13

Quality meets your firm’s 

standards 0 4 8 1 4 15 1 2 12

Quality exceeds your firm’s 

standards 0 4 7 1 4 15 1 3 10

Reliability of supply 0 7 5 1 6 13 1 5 9

Taste/flavor profile 5 3 4 7 7 6 6 4 5

Transportation network 1 4 6 2 8 9 2 2 10

Lower U.S. transportation costs 4 8 0 6 13 1 6 9 0

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Table continued on next page.
E-5

Table E-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

U.S. vs. Nonsubject1 Brazil vs. China1 Brazil vs. Ecuador1

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 039002011

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 0 2 10 0 1 1011

Delivery terms 1 7 4 1 1 0 0 2 0

Delivery time 4 6 2 1 1 0 0 2 0

Discounts offered 084020020

Extension of credit 0 9 3 0 2 0 0 2 0

Lower price2 246011011

Minimum quantity requirements 1 10 1 0 2 0020

Packaging 0 6 6 0 2 0 0 2 0

Product range 138011020

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 129011011

Quality meets your firm’s 

standards 039011011

Quality exceeds your firm’s 

standards 038011011

Reliability of supply 048011011

Taste/flavor profile 0 5 7 0 1 1 0 1 1

Transportation network 0 3 8 0 1 1 0 1 1

Lower U.S. transportation costs 1 10 1 0 2 0 0 2 0

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Table continued on next page.
E-6

Table E-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

Brazil vs. India1 Brazil vs. Thailand1 Brazil vs. Vietnam1

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 011003001

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 020012001

Delivery terms 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0

Delivery time 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0

Discounts offered 020030010

Extension of credit 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0

Lower price2 011021001

Minimum quantity requirements 020030010

Packaging 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0

Product range 002012010

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 020021001

Quality meets your firm’s 

standards 020012001

Quality exceeds your firm’s 

standards 020012001

Reliability of supply 011012001

Taste/flavor profile 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0

Transportation network 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1

Lower U.S. transportation costs 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 1 0

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Table continued on next page.
E-7

Table E-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

Brazil vs. Nonsubject1 China vs. Ecuador1 China vs. India1

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 011341211

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 020161121

Delivery terms 0 2 0 1 6 1 0 3 1

Delivery time 0 2 0 1 4 3 0 4 0

Discounts offered 020071031

Extension of credit 0 2 0 0 7 1 0 3 1

Lower price2 011440220

Minimum quantity requirements 020080031

Packaging 0 2 0 0 7 1 0 4 0

Product range 020260130

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 020080130

Quality meets your firm’s 

standards 020161121

Quality exceeds your firm’s 

standards 020062121

Reliability of supply 011170130

Taste/flavor profile 0 1 1 0 7 1 1 2 1

Transportation network 0 2 0 1 6 1 0 4 0

Lower U.S. transportation costs 0 2 0 0 8 0 0 4 0

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Table continued on next page.
E-8

Table E-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

China vs. Thailand1 China vs. Vietnam1 China vs. Nonsubject1

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 291111221

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 084021131

Delivery terms 0 11 1 0 2 1 0 3 2

Delivery time 0 11 1 0 2 1 0 2 3

Discounts offered 0 12 0 0 2 1041

Extension of credit 0 11 1 0 2 1 0 4 1

Lower price2 570210131

Minimum quantity requirements 0 12 0 0 2 1041

Packaging 0 12 0 0 2 1 0 4 1

Product range 0 11 1 0 1 2131

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 093021131

Quality meets your firm’s 

standards 0 10 2 0 2 1131

Quality exceeds your firm’s 

standards 084021131

Reliability of supply 0 10 2 1 1 1131

Taste/flavor profile 1 7 4 1 1 1 0 3 2

Transportation network 0 8 4 0 2 1 0 4 1

Lower U.S. transportation costs 0 12 0 0 3 0 0 4 1

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Table continued on next page.
E-9

Table E-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

Ecuador vs. India1 Ecuador vs. Thailand1 Ecuador vs. Vietnam1

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 111222032

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 120051212

Delivery terms 1 2 0 1 5 0 1 4 0

Delivery time 1 2 0 3 3 0 1 4 0

Discounts offered 030060050

Extension of credit 0 3 0 0 6 0 0 5 0

Lower price2 021042113

Minimum quantity requirements 030150050

Packaging 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 5 0

Product range 012024023

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 120051131

Quality meets your firm’s 

standards 120051041

Quality exceeds your firm’s 

standards 120051131

Reliability of supply 021141041

Taste/flavor profile 2 1 0 2 4 0 2 3 0

Transportation network 0 2 1 0 5 1 1 3 1

Lower U.S. transportation costs 0 3 0 0 5 1 0 5 0

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Table continued on next page.
E-10

Table E-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

Ecuador vs.

Nonsubject1 India vs. Thailand1 India vs. Vietnam1

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 131114022

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 140033013

Delivery terms 0 5 0 0 5 1 0 4 0

Delivery time 0 4 1 0 5 1 0 4 0

Discounts offered 041060040

Extension of credit 0 4 1 0 6 0 0 4 0

Lower price2 320330130

Minimum quantity requirements 050051040

Packaging 0 5 0 0 4 2 0 4 0

Product range 131033031

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 140033031

Quality meets your firm’s 

standards 140033031

Quality exceeds your firm’s 

standards 140042031

Reliability of supply 041033031

Taste/flavor profile 0 3 2 0 3 3 0 2 2

Transportation network 0 5 0 0 5 1 0 4 0

Lower U.S. transportation costs 0 5 0 0 6 0 0 4 0

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Table continued on next page.
E-11

Table E-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

India vs. Nonsubject1 Thailand vs. Vietnam1

Thailand vs.

Nonsubject1

SC I SC I SC I

Availability 021151123

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 030151150

Delivery terms 0 2 1 0 7 0 0 5 1

Delivery time 0 2 1 0 7 0 0 3 3

Discounts offered 012070051

Extension of credit 0 1 2 0 7 0 0 5 1

Lower price2 210052330

Minimum quantity requirements 030070051

Packaging 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 6 0

Product range 210151141

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 030070150

Quality meets your firm’s 

standards 030070141

Quality exceeds your firm’s 

standards 030160141

Reliability of supply 030151123

Taste/flavor profile 0 1 2 0 7 0 0 2 4

Transportation network 0 3 0 1 6 0 1 5 0

Lower U.S. transportation costs 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 6 0

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Table continued on next page.
E-12

Table E-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: Number of purchasers’ comparisons of U.S. product and imports

Factor

Vietnam vs. Nonsubject1

SC I

Availability 1 3 1

Consistency from one shipment

 to another 1 3 1

Delivery terms 0 4 1

Delivery time 0 4 1

Discounts offered 0 4 1

Extension of credit 0 4 1

Lower price2 320

Minimum quantity requirements 0 5 0

Packaging 0 5 0

Product range 1 3 1

Proper cutting, handling, and

 packing techniques 1 4 0

Quality meets your firm’s standards 1 3 1

Quality exceeds your firm’s standards 1 3 1

Reliability of supply 0 4 1

Taste/flavor profile 0 2 3

Transportation network 0 5 0

Lower U.S. transportation costs 0 4 0

 1 S = first named source superior, C = products comparable, I = first named source inferior. 2 A rating of superior means that the price is generally lower. For example, if a firm reports “U.S. superior,” it means that the

price of the U.S. product is generally lower than the price of the imported product.

Note.– When purchasers compared groups of countries, e.g., United States vs. all subject, the comparison was counted with each

country individually based on the countries with which the purchaser expressed a familiarity or from which the purchaser reported

purchases.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
F-1

APPENDIX F

U.S. FISHERMEN DATA
F-2
F-3

Table F-1

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. fishermen, location, position taken with respect to the petition, quantity of harvest in 2003, and

share of U.S. harvest in 2003, by firms

Firms Location

Position

taken with

respect to the

petition

Harvest in 2003

Quantity Share

Pounds Percent

A. J. Horizon LA Support *** ***

Ace of Trade LA Support *** ***

Angel Seafood AL Support *** ***

Angela Marie LA Support *** ***

Anna Grace SC Support *** ***

Annie Thornton TX Support *** ***

Anthony Garcia Trawlers TX Support *** ***

Apalachee Girl AL Support *** ***

Aparicio Trawlers TX Support *** ***

Barbara Brooks TX Support *** ***

Beth Lomonte TX Support *** ***

Big Grapes LA Support *** ***

*** *** *** *** ***

Bon Secour Boats AL Support *** ***

Burnell Trawlers TX Support *** ***

Capt. Arnulfo TX Support *** ***

Capt. Bean LA Support *** ***

Capt. Carlos Trawlers TX Support *** ***

Capt. Craig LA Support *** ***

Capt. GDA TX Support *** ***

Capt. JDL TX Support *** ***

Capt. Walley TX Support *** ***

Carly Sue FL Support *** ***

Carolina Seafoods SC Support *** ***

Charles Sellers SC Support *** ***

Charlotte Maier TX Support *** ***

Clinton Hayes FL Support *** ***

Country AL Support *** ***

Craig & Keith Wallis TX Support *** ***

Da Ha (Cat's Ass) FL Support *** ***

David C. Donnelly SC Support *** ***

Deau Nook MS Support *** ***

Debbe Anne TX Support *** ***

DG & RC TX Support *** ***

Donald F. Boone GA Support *** ***

Dragnet TX Support *** ***

DSL&R TX Support *** ***

Dunamis Towing LA Support *** ***

Edward Garcia TX Support *** ***

Edward Garcia Trawlers TX Support *** ***

Table continued.
F-4

Table F-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. fishermen, location, position taken with respect to the petition, quantity of harvest in 2003, and

share of U.S. harvest in 2003, by firm

Firms Location

Position

taken with

respect to the

petition

Harvest in 2003

Quantity Share

Pounds Percent

Elmira Pflueckhahn TX Support *** ***

Frank Toomer SC Support *** ***

Freedom Fishing AL Support *** ***

F/V Enterprise FL Support *** ***

Gold Coast Seafood TX Support *** ***

Grandpa's Dream FL Support *** ***

Gulf Sweeper TX Support *** ***

Hagan & Miley FL Support *** ***

Helen Kay TX Support *** ***

Home Loving Care TX Support *** ***

Independent Fish TX Support *** ***

Integrity Fisheries AL Support *** ***

Isabel Maier TX Support *** ***

Jackie & Hiep Trieu MS Support *** ***

Jacob A TX Support *** ***

James F. Dubberly GA Support *** ***

James Kenneth Lewis NC Support *** ***

James W. Green Jr. SC Support *** ***

Jesse LeCompte Jr. LA Support *** ***

JoAnn & Michael Daigle LA Support *** ***

Joseph Garcia TX Support *** ***

Julie Ann FL Support *** ***

Julie Shrimp TX Support *** ***

Julio Gonzalez (several boats) TX Support *** ***

J&J Rentals TX Support *** ***

K&S Trawlers FL Support *** ***

Kandi Sue (several boats) TX Support *** ***

KBL LA Support *** ***

Kenneth Garcia Trawlers TX Support *** ***

Khang Dang MS Support *** ***

Khanh Huu Vu TX Support *** ***

L & O Trawlers TX Support *** ***

Table continued.
Table F-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. fishermen, location, position taken with respect to the petition, quantity of harvest in 2003, and

share of U.S. harvest in 2003, by firm

Firms Location

Position

taken with

respect to the

petition

Harvest in 2003

Quantity Share

Pounds Percent

F-5

Lady Katherine NC Support *** ***

Lady Melissa LA Support *** ***

Lafourche Clipper LA Support *** ***

Lindsey & Ralph L.Thomas, Jr. SC Support *** ***

Little Ernie Gulf Trawler TX Support *** ***

Long Viet Nguyen TX Support *** ***

Low Country Lady SC Support *** ***

LW Graham AL Support *** ***

Lynda Riley TX Support *** ***

Mabry Allen Miller SC Support *** ***

Malolo FL Support *** ***

Mary Bea TX Support *** ***

Michael Lynn GA Support *** ***

Milton Yopp FL Support *** ***

Minh Doan & Liem Doan MS Support *** ***

Miss Caroline TX -- *** ***

Miss Carolyn Louise FL Support *** ***

Miss Danielle Gulf Trawler TX Support *** ***

Miss Georgia SC Support *** ***

Miss Loraine et al. AL Support *** ***

Miss Luana Shrimp GA Support *** ***

Miss Rhianna TX Support *** ***

Miss Sandra II SC Support *** ***

Miss Savannah II GA Support *** ***

Miss Suzanne FL Support *** ***

Mom & Dad LA Support *** ***

Montha Sok & Tan No Le MS Support *** ***

Mr. Verdin LA Support *** ***

M. V. Lepin Lane LA Support *** ***

Nancy Joy FL Support *** ***

North Point Trawlers AL Support *** ***

Otis Cantrelle Jr. LA Support *** ***

Papa Rod AL Support *** ***

Table continued.
Table F-1--Continued

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. fishermen, location, position taken with respect to the petition, quantity of harvest in 2003, and

share of U.S. harvest in 2003, by firm

Firms Location

Position

taken with

respect to the

petition

Harvest in 2003

Quantity Share

Pounds Percent

F-6

Phat Le & Le Tran MS Support *** ***

Randall Pinell LA Support *** ***

Randy Boy LA Support *** ***

Raul Castellanos TX Support *** ***

Reyes Trawlers TX Support *** ***

Romo TX Support *** ***

Ronnie L. Anderson Jr. LA Support *** ***

Rosa Marie AL Support *** ***

R&J SC Support *** ***

Salina Cruz TX Support *** ***

Sam Snodgrass TX Support *** ***

Samaira AL Support *** ***

Sea Eagle Fisheries AL Support *** ***

Skip Toomer SC Support *** ***

Skyla Marie LA Support *** ***

Stella Mestre FL Support *** ***

Sylvan P. Racine SC Support *** ***

Tanya Lea LA Support *** ***

Terry Luke LA Support *** ***

Three Sons TX Support *** ***

Tiffani Claire LA Support *** ***

Tikede/Sidney Fisheries TX Support *** ***

Trawler Raindear FL Support *** ***

Troy Le Compte Sr. LA Support *** ***

Tyler James LA Support *** ***

Ultima Cruz TX Support *** ***

Versaggi Shrimp FL Support *** ***

Villers Seafood FL Support *** ***

Webster's TX Support *** ***

West Point Trawlers AL Support *** ***

Westley J. Domangue LA Support *** ***

William E. Smith Jr. NC Support *** ***

WL&O TX Support *** ***

W.H. Blanchard LA Support *** ***

Zirlott Trawlers AL Support *** ***

Total (140) *** *** ***

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
Table F-2

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. fishermen's quantity harvested and employment-related indicators,

2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

January-June 

Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity harvested (1,000 pounds) 15,072 16,028 17,584 5,969 5,455

PRWs (number) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844 828 718 658 632

Days boat at sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,014 53,924 51,925 19,653 17,739

Wages paid to PRWs ($1,000) . . . 16,848 13,634 14,024 4,364 3,494

Average daily wages . . . . . . . . . . . $26.17 $20.75 $24.25 $18.54 $15.86

Average daily harvest (pounds) . . . 290.9 298.5 340.0 302.5 305.3

Average labor costs (per pound) . . $1.11 $0.85 $0.79 $0.74 $0.64

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table F-3

Warmwater shrimp: U.S. fishermen's shipments, by type, 2001-03, January-June 2003, 

and January-June 2004

January-June 

Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Sold to processors/docks . . . . . . . 13,412 14,293 15,612 5,514 5,017

Transferred to processors/docks . . 1,237 1,205 1,385 424 267

Other shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421 421 505 33 79

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,070 15,919 17,502 5,971 5,363

Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,070 15,919 17,502 5,971 5,363

Value ($1,000)

Sold to processors/docks . . . . . . . 50,322 43,369 44,109 14,144 12,494

Transferred to processors/docks . . 5,421 4,233 4,527 1,641 914

Other shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,919 1,542 1,719 192 258

 U.S. shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,661 49,144 50,355 15,977 13,666

Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00000

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,661 49,144 50,355 15,977 13,666

Unit value (dollars per pound)

Sold to processors/docks . . . . . . . 3.75 3.03 2.83 2.57 2.49

Transferred to processors/docks . . 4.38 3.51 3.27 3.87 3.43

Other shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.56 3.66 3.41 5.76 3.27

 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.83 3.09 2.88 2.68 2.55

Export shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.83 3.09 2.88 2.68 2.55

 (1) Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

F-7
Table F-4

Warmwater shrimp: Summary data concerning U.S. fishermen, 2001-03, January-June 2003, and January-June 2004

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

January-June Jan.-June

Item 2001 2002 2003 2003 2004 2001-2003 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004

U.S. fishermen's:

 Quantity harvested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,072 16,028 17,584 5,969 5,455 16.7 6.3 9.7 -8.6

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,070 15,919 17,502 5,971 5,363 16.1 5.6 9.9 -10.2

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,661 49,144 50,355 15,977 13,666 -12.7 -14.8 2.5 -14.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.83 $3.09 $2.88 $2.68 $2.55 -24.8 -19.3 -6.8 -4.8

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 844 828 718 658 632 -14.9 -1.9 -13.3 -3.9

 Days boats at sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,014 53,924 51,925 19,653 17,739 -0.2 3.7 -3.7 -9.7

 Wages paid to PRWs ($1,000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,848 13,634 14,024 4,364 3,494 -16.8 -19.1 2.9 -19.9

 Average daily wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $26.17 $20.75 $24.25 $18.54 $15.86 -7.3 -20.7 16.8 -14.5

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,447 14,422 16,280 4,766 4,635 21.1 7.3 12.9 -2.8

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,134 44,483 45,182 12,615 10,683 -15.0 -16.3 1.6 -15.3

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.95 $3.08 $2.78 $2.65 $2.30 -29.8 -21.9 -10.0 -12.9

 Operating expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,402 48,849 48,183 15,143 14,525 -8.1 -6.8 -1.4 -4.1

 Net income or (loss) before salaries. . . . . . . . . 732 (4,366) (3,001) (2,528) (3,842) (2) (2) 31.3 -51.9

 Officer/partner salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 619 494 603 206 278 -2.6 -20.2 22.0 34.8

 Net income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 (4,860) (3,604) (2,734) (4,119) (2) (2) 25.9 -50.7

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,043 4,431 1,393 1,024 121 -77.0 -26.7 -68.6 -88.2

 Unit operating expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3.90 $3.39 $2.96 $3.18 $3.13 -24.1 -13.1 -12.6 -1.4

 Unit net income or (loss) before salaries. . . . . . $0.05 ($0.30) ($0.18) ($0.53) ($0.83) (2) (2) 39.1 -56.2

 Unit officer/partner salaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.05 $0.03 $0.04 $0.04 $0.06 -19.6 -25.6 8.1 38.6

 Unit net income or (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.01 ($0.34) ($0.22) ($0.57) ($0.89) (2) (2) 34.3 -54.9

 Operating expenses/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.6 109.8 106.6 120.0 136.0 8.0 11.2 -3.2 15.9

 Net income or (loss) before salaries/sales (1) . 1.4 (9.8) (6.6) (20.0) (36.0) -8.0 -11.2 3.2 -15.9

 Net income or (loss)/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 (10.9) (8.0) (21.7) (38.6) -8.2 -11.1 3.0 -16.9

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Undefined.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

F-8
G-1

APPENDIX G

PRICING DATA

G-3

Table G-1

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 1, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table G-2

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 2, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table G-3

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 3, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table G-4

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 4, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table G-5

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 5, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table G-6

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 6, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table G-7

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 7, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *
G-4

Table G-8

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 8, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table G-9

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 9, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table G-10

Warmwater shrimp: Weighted-average selling prices and quantities as reported by U.S.

processors and importers of product 10, and margins of underselling/(overselling), by quarters,

January 2001- June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-1

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 1, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-2

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 1, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-3

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 2, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-4

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 2, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-5

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 3, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *
G-5

Figure G-6

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 3, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-7

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 4, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-8

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 4 by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-9

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 5, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-10

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 5, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-11

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 6, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-12

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 6, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-13

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 7, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *
G-6

Figure G-14

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 7, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-15

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 8, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-16

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 8, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-17

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 9, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-18

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 9, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-19

Weighted-average selling prices, as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 10, by

quarters, January 2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *

Figure G-20

Quantities sold as reported by U.S. processors and importers of product 10, by quarters, January

2001-June 2004

* * * * * * *
H-1

APPENDIX H

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON U.S. PROCESSORS’ 

EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION EFFORTS,

GROWTH, INVESTMENT, AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL
H-2
H-3

The Commission requested U.S. processors to describe any actual or potential negative effects

since January 1, 2001, on their return on investment, growth, investment, ability to raise capital, existing

development and production efforts (including efforts to develop a derivative or more advanced version

of the product), or the scale of capital investments as a result of imports of certain frozen or canned

warmwater shrimp and prawns from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and/ or Vietnam. Unless

specifically noted, the producers did not distinguish between Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, and

Vietnam in their comments. The responses of those firms that provided useable data are as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

I-1

APPENDIX I

SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA OF DOMESTIC 

PROCESSORS ON THEIR SHRIMP PROCESSING OPERATIONS
I-2
 1 Includes data on previously excluded processors, the targeted related parties, and processors not previously

excluded or currently targeted. The data corresponds with data contained in table VI-4.

I-3

The tables in appendix I present selected financial data on the processing operations of

domestic processors of warmwater shrimp. A summary of the data presented is as follows:

Table Data presented

I-1 Sales quantities for all domestic processors1

 sorted in descending order of

FY 2003 net sales values

I-2 Sales values for all domestic processors sorted in descending order of FY

2003 net sales values

I-3 Operating income/(loss) for all domestic processors sorted in descending

order of FY 2003 net sales values

I-4 Operating income/(loss) as a ratio to net sales for all domestic processors

sorted in descending order of FY 2003 net sales values

I-5 Unit value of net sales/tolling revenues for all domestic processors sorted

in descending order of FY 2003 net sales values

I-6 Unit value of operating expenses/tolling costs for all domestic processors

sorted in descending order of FY 2003 net sales values

I-7 Results of processors (except previously excluded and targeted related

processors) on their tolling operations

I-8 Results of processors (except previously excluded and targeted related

processors) on their non-tolling operations
I-4

Table I-1

Warmwater shrimp: Results of all domestic processors on their processing operations (net sales

quantity), fiscal years 2001-03, January - June 2003, and January - June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table I-2

Warmwater shrimp: Results of all domestic processors on their processing operations (net sales

value), fiscal years 2001-03, January - June 2003, and January - June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table I-3

Warmwater shrimp: Results of all domestic processors on their processing operations (net sales

operating income/loss value), fiscal years 2001-03, January - June 2003, and January - June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table I-4

Warmwater shrimp: Results of all domestic processors on their processing operations (operating

income/loss ratio to net sales), fiscal years 2001-03, January - June 2003, and January - June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table I-5

Warmwater shrimp: Results of all domestic processors on their processing operations (unit value

of net sales/tolling revenues), fiscal years 2001-03, January - June 2003, and January - June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table I-6 

Warmwater shrimp: Results of all domestic processors on their processing operations (unit value

of operating expenses/tolling costs), fiscal years 2001-03, January - June 2003, and January - June

2004

* * * * * * *

Table I-7 

Warmwater shrimp: Results of processors (except previously excluded and targeted related

parties) on their toll processing operations, fiscal years 2001-03, January - June 2003, and 

January - June 2004

* * * * * * *

Table I-8 

Warmwater shrimp: Results of processors (except previously excluded and targeted related

parties) on their non-toll processing operations, fiscal years 2001-03, January - June 2003, and

January - June 2004

* * * * * * *
J-1

APPENDIX J

ALLEGED EFFECTS OF IMPORTS ON U.S. FISHERMEN’S EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT AND HARVESTING EFFORTS, GROWTH, INVESTMENT,

AND ABILITY TO RAISE CAPITAL
J-2
J-3

The Commission requested fishermen to describe any actual or anticipated negative effects of

imports of warmwater shrimp from Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand, or Vietnam, on their return

on investment or their growth, investment, ability to raise capital, and existing development and

harvesting efforts, or their scale of capital investments undertaken as a result of such imports. The

responses are as follows:

Actual Negative Effects

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Negative Effects

* * * * * * *