Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Notices 63507

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

A–428–801

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From 

Germany; Amended Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of amended final results 

of antidumping duty administrative 

review.

SUMMARY: On September 15, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce published in 

the Federal Register the final results of 

the administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings and parts thereof from France, 

Germany, Italy, Japan, Singapore and 

the United Kingdom. The period of 

review is May 1, 2002, through April 30, 

2003. Based on the correction of certain 

ministerial errors, we have changed the 

antidumping margin for Paul Mueller 

Industrie GmbH & Co. KG and we are 

amending our final results of the 

administrative review of ball bearings 

and parts thereof from Germany.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Please Contact David Dirstine at (202) 

482–4033 or Richard Rimlinger at (202) 

482–4477; AD/CVD Operations, Office 

5, Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On September 15, 2004, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published in the Federal 

Register the final results of the 

administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on ball 

bearings and parts thereof (ball bearings) 

from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, 

Singapore and the United Kingdom (69 

FR 55574) (Final Results).

On September 27, 2004, we received 

timely allegations of ministerial errors 

from Timken U.S. Corporation 

(Timken). Specifically, Timken asserted 

that the Department erred when it 

included amounts for Paul Mueller 

Industrie GmbH & Co. KG’s (Paul 

Mueller’s) home–market credit expenses 

and inventory carrying costs in the 

calculation of selling expenses for use in 

the calculation of the constructed–

export-price (CEP) profit ratio. 

Furthermore, Timken alleged that there 

was an irregularity in the margin 

calculation that resulted in an improper 

match for certain models of ball 

bearings.

On September 29, 2004, Paul Mueller 

submitted its response to Timken’s 

September 27, 2004, clerical–error 

submission. In response to Timken’s 

allegation that a clerical error resulted 

in an incorrect calculation of the CEP 

profit ratio, Paul Mueller suggested that 

the alleged error raises a methodological 

issue. Paul Mueller argues that Timken’s 

clerical error claim regarding the 

calculation of the CEP profit ratio 

should be rejected and any dispute 

relating to this issue should be subject 

to judicial review. Finally, Paul Mueller 

agrees that a clerical error resulted in an 

improper match for certain models of 

ball bearings.

We agree with Timken that the items 

in question are ministerial errors and we 

have amended the final results to 

correct these errors. See the Paul 

Mueller Amended Final Results 

Analysis Memorandum dated October 

19, 2004.

Amended Final Results of Review

As a result of the correction of the 

ministerial errors, the weighted–average 

margin for Paul Mueller for the period 

May 1, 2002, through April 30, 2003, 

changed from 0.36 percent to 0.44 

percent.

We revoked the order in part with 

respect to all subject merchandise 

manufactured and exported by Paul 

Mueller in the Final Results based in 

part on the de minimis margin we 

calculated for Paul Mueller in this 

review. Since the revised margin based 

on these corrections is still de minimis

our decision to revoke is not affected by 

the amended final results of review. 

While the dumping margin we 

calculated for Paul Mueller remains de 

minimis, the assessment rate we 

calculated for Paul Mueller based on 

entered customs value is not de 

minimis. Therefore, in accordance with 

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

U.S. Customs and Border Production to 

assess the resulting percentage margin 

against the entered customs value of 

Paul Mueller’s entries (all of which were 

constructed export–price sales) during 

the review period. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1).

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination and notice in accordance 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

Dated: October 27, 2004.

James J. Jochum,

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. E4–2982 Filed 11–1–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry 

and Scope Inquiry

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of initiation of 

anticircumvention inquiry and scope 

inquiry: certain frozen fish fillets from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

the Catfish Farmers of America and 

certain individual U.S. catfish 

processors, (collectively, ‘‘petitioners’’), 

the Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) is initiating an 

anticircumvention inquiry to determine 

whether certain imports of frozen fish 

fillets from Cambodia are circumventing 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen fish fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) See 

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

47909 (August 12, 2003) (‘‘FFF Duty 

Order’’). In addition, in response to a 

scope ruling request filed by Piazza 

Seafood World LLC (‘‘Piazza’’) on May 

12, 2004, the Department is initiating a 

scope inquiry.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 2, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kit 

L. Rudd or Alex Villanueva, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1385 and (202) 

482–3208, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On May 12, 2004, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.225(c), the Department received a 

request from Piazza Seafood World LLC 

(‘‘Piazza’’), for a scope ruling on certain 

basa and tra fillets from Cambodia 

confirming that fillets made from live 

basa and tra fish which are a product of 

Vietnam are excluded from the 

antidumping duty order on certain

63508 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Notices 

1Until July 1, 2004, these products were 

classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 

(Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish 

Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater 

Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) 

of the HTSUS.

frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. See FFF 

Duty Order. On June 9, 2004, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to Piazza requesting 

additional information pertaining to this 

request. On July 7, 2004, the Department 

received Piazza’s response to this 

supplemental questionnaire. On July 23, 

2004, petitioners commented on 

Piazza’s May 12, 2004, and July 7, 2004 

submissions. On October 19, 2004, 

Piazza submitted to the Department 

additional factual data supplementing 

its July 7, 2004, response to the 

Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire. 

On August 20, 2004, petitioners 

requested that the Department conduct 

an anticircumvention inquiry pursuant 

to section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’) to 

determine whether imports of frozen 

fish fillets from Cambodia made from 

live fish which are a product of Vietnam 

are circumventing the antidumping duty 

order on certain frozen fish fillets from 

Vietnam. Specifically, petitioners allege 

that processing in, and exporting from, 

Cambodia frozen fish fillets of the 

species Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius 

Hypophthalmus (also known as 

Pangasius Pangasius), and Pangasius 

Micronemus produced from live fish 

which are a product of Vietnam 

constitutes circumvention of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. On 

October 20, 2004, Piazza submitted 

comments on petitioners’ August 20, 

2004, request for an anticircumvention 

inquiry. 

With respect to Piazza’s October 19, 

2004, and October 20, 2004, 

submissions, we note that due to the 

late filing of these submissions, the 

Department is unable to consider them 

for purposes of initiation of the 

requested scope and anticircumvention 

inquiries. We may, however, consider 

these submissions in the course of the 

formal inquiries. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this order is 

frozen fish fillets, including regular, 

shank, and strip fillets and portions 

thereof, whether or not breaded or 

marinated, of the species Pangasius 

Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus

(also known as Pangasius Pangasius), 

and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish 

fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. 

The fillet products covered by the scope 

include boneless fillets with the belly 

flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless 

fillets with the belly flap removed 

(‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets 

cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’), 

which include fillets cut into strips, 

chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other 

shape. Specifically excluded from the 

scope are frozen whole fish (whether or 

not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen 

belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole 

dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and 

eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, crosssection cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are 

the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise 

will be hereinafter referred to as frozen 

‘‘basa’’ and ‘‘tra’’ fillets, which are the 

Vietnamese common names for these 

species of fish. These products are 

classifiable under tariff article code 

0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the 

species Pangasius including basa and 

tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).1 This 

order covers all frozen fish fillets 

meeting the above specification, 

regardless of tariff classification. 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of this proceeding is dispositive. 

See FFF Duty Order at 47909.

Initiation of Anticircumvention 

Proceeding 

Applicable Statute 

Section 781(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may find 

circumvention of an antidumping duty 

order when merchandise of the same 

class or kind subject to the order is 

completed or assembled in a foreign 

country other than the country to which 

the order applies. In conducting 

anticircumvention inquiries under 

section 781(b) of the Act, the 

Department relies upon the following 

criteria: (A) Merchandise imported into 

the United States is of the same class or 

kind as any merchandise produced in a 

foreign country that is subject to an 

antidumping duty order; (B) before 

importation into the United States, such 

imported merchandise is completed or 

assembled in another foreign country 

from merchandise which is subject to 

the order or produced in the foreign 

country that is subject to the order; (C) 

the process of assembly or completion 

in the foreign country referred to in (B) 

is minor or insignificant; (D) the value 

of the merchandise produced in the 

foreign country to which the 

antidumping duty order applies is a 

significant portion of the total value of 

the merchandise exported to the United 

States; and (E) the administering 

authority determines that action is 

appropriate to prevent evasion of such 

order or finding. As discussed below, 

petitioners presented evidence with 

respect to these criteria. 

A. Merchandise of the Same Class or 

Kind 

Petitioners state that the FFF Duty 

Order covers frozen fish fillets of the 

various Pangasius family to include 

Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius 

Hypophthalmus and Pangasius 

Micronemus. Petitioners argue that 

since frozen fish fillets of these species, 

which are being imported into the 

United States from Cambodia, are 

physically identical to subject 

merchandise fillets from Vietnam, 

pursuant to section 781(b)(1)(A)(i) of the 

Act, these fillets are of the same class or 

kind as those fillets produced in 

Vietnam which are subject to the 

antidumping duty order. 

B. Completion of Merchandise in a 

Foreign Country 

Petitioners state that the frozen fish 

fillets which are the subject of the 

anticircumvention inquiry request are 

made from live basa and tra produced 

in Vietnam and processed in Cambodia 

for export to the United States. 

Petitioners argue that these frozen fish 

fillets are the final result of a production 

process that involves a multi-stage 

growing process to produce the live basa 

and tra fish in Vietnam with end stage 

processing into frozen fillets in 

Cambodia. Petitioners therefore 

conclude that pursuant to section 

781(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act these frozen 

fish fillets are merchandise completed 

in another foreign country (Cambodia) 

from merchandise that is produced in a 

foreign country with respect to which 

the referenced antidumping duty order 

applies (Vietnam). 

C. Minor or Insignificant Process 

Petitioners argue that for the purposes 

of section 781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, 

conversion of whole live Vietnamese 

basa and tra fish into frozen fillets in 

Cambodia is a ‘‘minor or insignificant 

process’’ as defined by the Act. 

According to petitioners, the 

respondents in the original investigation 

argued that the final stage of processing 

whole live basa and tra fish into frozen 

fish fillets was minor as compared to the 

preceding steps for growing the live 

fish. Petitioners also state that since 

they have little information about the 

processing activities in Cambodia they 

feel that the best information available 

on Cambodian processing is the record 

of the underlying investigation 

concerning production in Vietnam. 

Petitioners argue that an analysis of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Notices 63509

revelatory statutory factors of section 

781(b)(2) of the Act further supports 

their conclusion that the Cambodian 

processing is ‘‘minor or insignificant.’’

These factors include: (1) Level of 

investment in the foreign country; (2) 

level of research and development in 

the foreign country; (3) nature of the 

production process in the foreign 

country; (4) extent of production 

facilities in the foreign country; and (5) 

whether the value of the processing in 

the foreign country represents a small 

proportion of the value of the 

merchandise imported into the United 

States. 

Petitioners’ analysis of these factors to 

include citations as appropriate, is as 

follows. Based on this analysis, 

petitioners conclude that the 

Cambodian process is ‘‘minor and 

insignificant’’ as the term is defined in 

section 781(b)(2) of the Act when 

compared to the Vietnamese multi-stage 

live fish growing process. 

(1) Level of Investment 

Petitioners state they do not have 

access to information concerning the 

level of investment that has been made 

in Cambodia supporting the final 

processing of basa and tra fish. 

However, petitioners cite to a February 

2001 report by the Cambodian 

Department of Fisheries on trade, 

marketing and processing of fish and 

fish products to support their argument 

that they believe the level of investment 

in basa and tra processing is minimal. 

See The Department of Fisheries: Trade, 

Marketing and Processing of Fisheries 

and Fisheries Product Review Technical 

Paper 6 (February, 2001) (‘‘Fisheries 

Report’’). Petitioners cite to this report 

to support their argument that even in 

processing plants where some level of 

foreign investment has taken place, 

facilities remain poor and 

unmodernized. See Fisheries Report at 

12. Petitioners note that the report states 

that even those facilities characterized 

as ‘‘modern or industrial’’ by the 

Cambodian government were also 

described as ‘‘extremely poor’’ with ‘‘no 

concept of a proper processing line.’’

See Fisheries Report at 11–12. 

Petitioners cite to the U.S. International 

Trade Commission’s (‘‘USITC’’) Final 

Determination and the Department’s 

Preliminary Issues and Decision 

Memorandum in the underlying 

Vietnam investigation to support their 

belief that, similar to Vietnamese 

processing facilities, workers cut fillets 

by hand as opposed to using automated 

equipment as is typical in the United 

States. See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from Vietnam, U.S. International Trade 

Commission Investigation No. 731–TA–

1012 (Final), Pub. No. 3617 (August 

2003) (‘‘USITC Final’’) at I–4; Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam (June 16, 

2003) (‘‘I & D Memo’’) at 44. Based on 

these sources, petitioners conclude that 

the level of investment in Cambodian 

processing facilities is low. 

(2) Level of Research and Development 

Petitioners state they rely on the 

record of the underlying investigation to 

support their position that the level and 

extent of research and development in 

frozen fish fillet processing is low. 

Petitioners cite to the verification report 

for An Giang Fisheries Import and 

Export Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘AGIFISH’’) and the USITC Final to 

support their argument that because fish 

fillet processing is a mature industry, 

research and development is almost 

entirely concentrated in the production 

of the fish rather than the end stage 

processing. See AGIFISH Verification 

Report (April 11, 2003) at 14–19; USITC 

Final at VI–5. 

(3) Nature of the Production Process

Petitioners argue that the processing 

of live basa and tra into fillets requires 

only unskilled manual labor. Petitioners 

cite to the AGIFISH Verification Report 

to support this argument as the report 

states that virtually every step in the 

process, from killing to placing the 

fillets on trays for freezing is done by 

hand. See AGIFISH Verification Report

at 16–19. Petitioners point out that 

although U.S. processors may employ 

relatively high technology processing 

equipment, this equipment is not 

required to process live fish. Petitioners 

contend there is no indication that high 

technology processing methods 

employed in the United States 

processing facilities are used in 

Cambodia and it is reasonable to assume 

that Cambodian processing is no more 

sophisticated than processing in 

Vietnam. 

(4) Extent of Production in Cambodia 

Petitioners state they do not know the 

extent of facilities that can process 

Vietnamese basa and tra into frozen fish 

fillets. However, petitioners cite to the 

Fisheries Report which states that as of 

February 2001 there were four ‘‘freezing 

processing enterprises’’ in Cambodia 

with export permits. See Fisheries 

Report at 11. Petitioners conclude that 

the ease with which Vietnamese basa 

and tra can be transported to Cambodia, 

coupled with the existence of the 

freezing processing facilities can 

facilitate an immediate and significant 

shift to processing Vietnamese basa and 

tra in Cambodia. 

(5) Value of Cambodian Processing 

Compared to Fillets Imported Into the 

United States 

Petitioners again refer to respondents’

arguments in the underlying 

investigation wherein they state that the 

cost of the live fish was the most 

important input in the production of 

subject merchandise. Petitioners cite to 

the I & D Memo to support their 

argument that because of the relatively 

low cost of end stage processing in 

Cambodia, the ability of fish fillet 

processors to compete successfully 

depends upon their ability to manage 

the cost of the main material input, i.e.

whole live fish. See I & D Memo at 28. 

D. Value of Merchandise Produced in 

Cambodia 

Petitioners argue that the evidence as 

noted supra in their submission clearly 

supports their position that the value of 

the whole live basa and tra produced in 

Vietnam is a significant percentage of 

the overall value of the frozen basa and 

tra fillets imported into the United 

States from Cambodia. Petitioners also 

restate their position that in Cambodia, 

as in Vietnam, manual, low tech 

processing merely ‘‘completes’’ the 

product, and the overwhelming value 

derives from the whole live fish input. 

E. Factors To Consider in Determining 

Whether Action Is Necessary 

Petitioners argue that additional 

factors must be considered in the 

Department’s decision whether to issue 

a finding of circumvention regarding 

importation of Cambodian frozen fish 

fillets. These factors are discussed 

below. 

Pattern of Trade 

Petitioners state that section 781(b)(3) 

of the Act directs the Department to take 

into account patterns of trade when 

making a decision on anticircumvention 

rulings. Petitioners argue that U.S. 

Bureau of Census import statistics 

demonstrate a pattern of trade indicative 

of significant evasion of the Vietnamese 

antidumping duty order. Specifically, 

petitioners argue that prior to issuance 

of the Vietnam antidumping duty order, 

virtually no frozen fish fillets entered 

the United States from Cambodia. 

However, starting in January 2004, 

following imposition of the 

antidumping duty order in August 2003, 

imports of frozen fish fillets under 

HTSUS classifications 0304.2060.30, 

0304.2060.96, and 0304.2060.43, 

reached commercially significant levels, 

totaling 768,000 pounds for the first half 

63510 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2004 / Notices 

of 2004, compared with no imports for 

the same period in 2003. Petitioners 

further argue that if Cambodian imports 

continue to increase at the current rate, 

they will reach more than 1.5 million 

pounds for all of 2004, compared with 

70,000 pounds for all of 2003. 

Petitioners also point out that until July 

1, 2004, there was no specific HTSUS 

classification for frozen fish fillets of the 

Pangasius family. However, petitioners 

argue, their analysis of publicly 

available Port Import Export Reporting 

Service (‘‘PIERS’’) data on Cambodian 

imports under HTSUS classifications 

0304.2060.30, 0304.2060.96 and 

0304.2060.43 indicate that the bulk of 

shipments are comprised of frozen basa 

and tra fillets. Petitioners therefore 

conclude that, absent any knowledge of 

other types of frozen fish fillets 

currently produced in Cambodia for 

export to the United States, the majority 

of frozen fish fillets entering the United 

from Cambodia are basa and tra. 

Other Information Not Available to 

Petitioners 

Petitioners argue that they have no 

information concerning formal or 

informal relationships, if any, between 

Vietnamese growers/producers of whole 

live basa and tra and Cambodian 

processors. Finally, petitioners contend 

they are unable to ascertain the level of 

Vietnamese exports of whole live basa 

and tra to Cambodia as a result of their 

inability to obtain applicable trade 

statistics. Petitioners add that even in 

the event such trade statistics were 

made available that the high degree of 

informal cross-border trade would likely 

not be accounted for in these statistics. 

Analysis 

Based on our analysis of the 

application, the Department determines 

that a formal anticircumvention inquiry 

is warranted. With regard to whether the 

merchandise from Cambodia is of the 

same class or kind as the merchandise 

produced in Vietnam, petitioners have 

presented information indicating that 

the merchandise being imported from 

Cambodia is of the same class or kind 

as those fillets produced in Vietnam 

which are subject to the antidumping 

duty order. The merchandise from 

Cambodia shares physical 

characteristics with the merchandise 

covered by the antidumping duty order. 

With regard to completion of 

merchandise in a foreign country, 

petitioners have also presented 

information that the fish fillets from 

Cambodia are being processed in 

Cambodia, using Vietnamese fish as the 

input. This information is consistent 

with the information contained in the 

Piazza scope request. See Scope Inquiry 

Request from Piazza, dated May 12, 

2004. 

With regard to whether the 

conversion of whole live Vietnamese 

basa and tra fish into frozen fish fillets 

from Cambodia is a ‘‘minor or 

insignificant process,’’ petitioners 

addressed the relevant statutory factors 

used to determine whether the 

processing of live fish is minor or 

insignificant with the best information 

available to petitioners at the time of the 

request. Although petitioners submitted 

minimal information that addresses the 

minor or insignificant factor, the 

information submitted by petitioners 

with respect to the level of investment, 

research and development, nature of 

production process, extent of 

production in Cambodia, and the value 

of the Cambodian processing as 

compared to fillets imported to the 

United States supports their request to 

initiate an anticircumvention inquiry. 

With respect to the value of the 

merchandise produced in Cambodia, 

petitioners rely upon the findings of the 

investigation, which show the cost of 

the live fish input is significant relative 

to the cost of end-stage processing.

Finally, petitioners argued that the 

Department should also consider the 

pattern of trade factor in determining 

whether to initiate the 

anticircumvention inquiry. The import 

information submitted by petitioners 

indicates that imports of frozen fish 

fillets from Cambodia are rising 

significantly. 

Accordingly, we are initiating a 

formal anticircumvention inquiry 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on certain frozen fish fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, pursuant 

to section 781(b) of the Act. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.225(l)(2), if 

the Department issues a preliminary 

affirmative determination, we will then 

instruct the Bureau of Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to suspend 

liquidation and require a cash deposit of 

estimated duties on the merchandise. 

Concurrent Scope Request 

On May 12, 2004, Piazza submitted a 

scope request asking that the 

Department confirm that frozen fish 

fillets processed in Cambodia from 

Vietnamese-origin whole fish are 

excluded from the scope of the 

antidumping duty order on frozen fish 

fillets. Specifically, Piazza argues that 

the whole live fish raised in Vietnam are 

outside the scope of the FFF Duty Order

and that the filleting, freezing, and 

packaging process in Cambodia results 

in the fillets having a country of origin 

of Cambodia. Further, Piazza argues 

that, if the Department concludes that 

the description of the merchandise does 

not clearly exclude the whole live fish 

raised in Vietnam and filleted and 

frozen in Cambodia, a substantial 

transformation analysis demonstrates 

that the live fish would be substantially 

transformed into a product of Cambodia 

and thus would not fall under the scope 

of antidumping duty order on frozen 

fish fillets from Vietnam. 

After reviewing Piazza’s scope inquiry 

request, the Department determines that 

it is not clear whether the frozen fish 

fillets produced from Vietnamese whole 

live fish are outside the scope of the 

order on frozen fish fillets from 

Vietnam. Specifically, a determination 

as to whether the frozen fish fillets are 

within the scope of the antidumping 

duty order may depend upon an 

analysis of the significance of the 

production process in Cambodia; 

therefore, further inquiry is necessary. 

Because both the anticircumvention and 

scope request may necessitate an 

analysis of the significance of the 

production process in Cambodia, the 

Department finds it appropriate to 

initiate both concurrently. In addition, 

at this time, the Department is focusing 

its analysis of the significance of the 

production process in Cambodia on the 

single processor identified by the 

petitioners in their August 20, 2004, 

anticircumvention request and about 

which sufficient information to initiate 

an inquiry has been provided. However, 

within 45 days of the date of initiation 

of this inquiry, if the Department 

receives sufficient evidence that other 

Cambodian processors are involved in 

processing Vietnamese whole live fish 

for export to the United States, we will 

consider examining such additional 

processors. 

The Department will, following 

consultation with interested parties, 

establish a schedule for questionnaires 

and comments on the issues. The 

Department intends to issue its final 

determination within 300 days of the 

date of publication of this initiation. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 781(b) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.225.

Dated: October 22, 2004. 

Joseph A Spetrini, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration.

[FR Doc. 04–24541 Filed 11–1–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P