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)