Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Notices 45805 

1The Department is treating QVD, QVD Dong 

Thap Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘QVD DT’’), and Thuan Hung 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Thuan Hung’’) as a single entity in these 

preliminary results. Similarly, the Department is 

treating Vinh Hoan, Vinh Hoan USA Inc. (‘‘Vinh 

Hoan USA’’), and Van Duc Food Export Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Van Duc’’) as a single entity. Section 

351.401(f) of the Department’s regulations define 

single entities as those affiliated producers who 

have production facilities for similar or identical 

products that would not require substantial 

retooling of either facility in order to restructure 

manufacturing priorities and the Secretary 

concludes that there is a significant potential for the 

manipulation of price or production. For further 

analysis, see Affiliations section below. 

2The Catfish Farmers of America and individual 

U.S. catfish processors, America’s Catch, 

Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC dba Country 

Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest 

Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, 

Pride of the Pond, Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, 

Inc., and Southern Pride Catfish Company LLC 

(‘‘Petitioners’’). 

(serviced by Northeast Indiana Grain 

Inspection, Inc.). 

Omaha 

Pursuant to Section 7(f)(2) of the Act, 

the following geographic areas in the 

States of Iowa and Nebraska are 

assigned to this official agency. 

• Bounded on the North by Nebraska 

State Route 91 from the western 

Washington County line east to U.S. 

Route 30; U.S. Route 30 east to the 

Missouri River; the Missouri River north 

to Iowa State Route 175; Iowa State 

Route 175 east to Iowa State Route 37; 

Iowa State Route 37 southeast to the 

eastern Monona County line; 

• Bounded on the East by the eastern 

Monona County line; the southern 

Monona County line west to Iowa State 

Route 183; Iowa State Route 183 south 

to the Pottawattamie County line; the 

northern and eastern Pottawattamie 

County lines; the southern 

Pottawattamie County line west to M47; 

M47 south to Iowa State Route 48; Iowa 

State Route 48 south to the Montgomery 

County line; 

• Bounded on the South by the 

southern Montgomery County line; the 

southern Mills County line west to 

Interstate 29; Interstate 29 north to U.S. 

Route 34; U.S. Route 34 west to the 

Missouri River; the Missouri River north 

to the Sarpy County line (in Nebraska); 

the southern Sarpy County line; the 

southern Saunders County line west to 

U.S. Route 77; and 

• Bounded on the West by U.S. Route 

77 north to the Platte River; the Platte 

River southeast to the Douglas County 

line; the northern Douglas County line 

east; the western Washington County 

line northwest to Nebraska State Route 

91. 

The following grain elevators, located 

outside of the above areas, are serviced 

by Omaha: Hancock Elevator, Elliot, 

Montgomery County, Iowa; Hancock 

Elevator (2 elevators), Griswold, Cass 

County, Iowa (located inside Central 

Iowa Grain Inspection Service, Inc.’s, 

area); United Farmers Coop, Rising City, 

Butler County, Nebraska; United 

Farmers Coop, Shelby, Polk County, 

Nebraska (located inside Fremont Grain 

Inspection Department, Inc.’s, area); and 

Goode Seed & Grain, McPaul, Fremont 

County, Iowa; Haveman Grain, Murray, 

Cass County, Nebraska (located inside 

Lincoln Inspection Service, Inc.’s, area). 

The following grain elevators located 

within Omaha’s assigned geographic 

area are serviced by Fremont Grain 

Inspection Department, Inc.: Farmers 

Cooperative, Saunders County, 

Nebraska and Krumel Grain and 

Storage, Saunders County, Nebraska. 

Opportunity for Designation 

Interested persons or governmental 

agencies may apply for designation to 

provide official services in the 

geographic areas specified above under 

the provisions of section 7(f) of the 

USGSA and 7 CFR 800.196(d). 

Designation in the specified geographic 

areas is for the period beginning January 

4, 2010, and ending December 31, 2012. 

To apply for designation or for more 

information, contact Karen Guagliardo 

at the address listed above or visit 

GIPSA’s Web site at http:// 

www.gipsa.usda.gov. 

Request for Comments 

We are publishing this notice to 

provide interested persons the 

opportunity to comment on the quality 

of services provided by the Champaign, 

Detroit, Eastern Iowa, Enid, Keokuk, 

Michigan, and Omaha official agencies. 

In the designation process, we are 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments citing reasons and pertinent 

data supporting or objecting to the 

designation of the applicants. Submit all 

comments to Karen Guagliardo at the 

above address or at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

We consider applications, comments, 

and other available information when 

determining which applicant will be 

designated. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71–87k. 

J. Dudley Butler, 

Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and 

Stockyards Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21336 Filed 9–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–KD–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice 

of Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Reviews and Fifth Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting new 

shipper reviews and an administrative 

review of 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) (‘‘Order’’). We 

preliminarily find that QVD Food 

Company Ltd. (‘‘QVD’’),1 Vinh Hoan 

Corporation (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’), SaigonMekong Fishery Co. (‘‘SAMEFICO’’), 

and Cadovimex II Seafood ImportExport & Processing Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Cadovimex II’’) did not sell 

subject merchandise at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’), August 1, 2007, 

through July 31, 2008. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 4, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Ray (QVD), Javier Barrientos (Vinh 

Hoan), Alexis Polovina (SAMEFICO), 

and Tim Lord (Cadovimex II) Office 9, 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–5403, (202) 482– 

2243, (202) 482–3927, and (202) 482– 

7425, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

On August 1, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of an opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 44966 (August 1, 2008). By August 

31, 2008, the Department received 

review requests for 20 companies from 

Petitioners 2 and certain individual 

companies. In addition, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.214(c), the Department also 

received new shipper review requests 

from SAMEFICO and Cadovimex II on 

August 8, 2008, and, August 24, 2008, 

respectively. 

On September 30, 2008, the 

Department initiated an antidumping 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
45806 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Notices 

3We note that the initiation notice contained 20 

companies. However, two of those companies (Vinh 

Hoan Co., Ltd. and Vinh Hoan Corporation) are the 

same company, existing with the former name prior 

to the POR and with the latter name during and 

after the POR. 

4Pursuant to 5th AR Partial Rescision, the 

Department rescinded on the 13 following 

companies: An Xuyen Co., Ltd.; Asia Commerce 

Fisheries Joint Stock Company (aka Acomfish JSC); 

Ben Tre Forestry Aquaproduct Import-Export 

Company (aka FAQUIMEX); Binh An Seafood Joint 

Stock Co.; Hiep Thanh Seafood Joint Stock Co.; 

Hung Vuong Corporation; Nam Viet Company 

Limited (aka NAVICO); Phuong Nam Co., Ltd.; Da 

Nang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation (aka 

Da Nang or Seaprodex Danang); Southern Fishery 

Industries Company, Ltd. (aka South Vina); Thien 

Ma Seafood Co., Ltd.; Vinh Quang Fisheries 

Corporation; and Anvifish Co., Ltd. 

duty administrative review on frozen 

fish fillets from Vietnam covering 20 

companies. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Requests 

for Revocation in Part (‘‘5th AR 

Initiation’’), 73 FR 56795 (September 30, 

2008).3

On October 1, 2008, the Department 

initiated the new shipper reviews for 

SAMEFICO and Cadovimex II. See 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation 

of New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 57058 

(October 1, 2008). 

On October 29, 2008, the Department 

issued a letter to all interested parties 

informing them of its decision to select 

QVD and Vinh Hoan, the two largest 

exporters of subject merchandise during 

the POR, as mandatory respondents 

based on Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) import data for the fifth 

administrative review. See 

Memorandum to the File from Alexis 

Polovina, Case Analyst, through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection 

of Respondents for Individual Review 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’), dated 

October 29, 2008. 

Between December 4, 2009, and June 

23, 2009, QVD submitted responses to 

the original sections A, C, and D 

questionnaires and supplemental 

sections A, C, and D questionnaires. 

Between November 24, 2008, and June 

10, 2009, Vinh Hoan submitted 

responses to the original sections A, C, 

and D questionnaires and supplemental 

sections A, C, and D questionnaires. 

In the new shipper reviews, 

Cadovimex submitted responses to 

questionnaires between November 4, 

2008, and July 15, 2009. SAMEFICO 

submitted responses to questionnaires 

between December 31, 2008, and March 

31, 2009. 

On March 20, 2009, the Department 

aligned the antidumping duty new 

shipper and administrative reviews. On 

April 23, 2009, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of this review by 120 

days, to August 31, 2009. See Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time 

Limit for Preliminary Results of the Fifth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review (‘‘Prelim Extension’’), 74 FR 

18549 (April 23, 2009). 

On April 30, 2009, the Department 

rescinded the administrative review 

with respect to 13 companies because 

all requesting parties for those 

companies withdrew their requests for 

review in a timely manner. See Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of the Fifth Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

19933 (April 30, 2009) (‘‘5th AR Partial 

Rescission’’).4 Therefore, seven 

companies remain in this administrative 

review: East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘East Sea’’), the QVD single 

entity, representing three affiliated and 

collapsed companies, An Giang 

Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Agifish’’ or ‘‘AnGiang 

Fisheries Import and Export’’), Vinh 

Hoan Corporation, and Vinh Hoan 

Company, Ltd. 

QVD’s Revocation Request 

On August 29, 2008, in QVD’s request 

for an administrative review, QVD 

requested that the antidumping order be 

revoked for QVD, pursuant to section 

351.222(b)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations. Section 351.222(b)(2) 

permits, in relevant part, the 

Department to revoke an order in part 

with regard to a particular company if 

that company has not sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV for a 

period of at least three consecutive 

years. QVD participated in the second, 

third, and fourth administrative 

reviews. QVD received a weightedaverage margin of 0.0 percent in the 

second and third administrative 

reviews, but received a weightedaverage margin of 0.52 percent in the 

fourth administrative review. Because 

QVD sold merchandise at less than NV 

during the fourth administrative review, 

it does not qualify for revocation under 

the Department’s regulations. 

Vietnam-Wide Entity 

As discussed above, in this 

administrative review we limited the 

selection of respondents using CBP 

import data. See Respondent Selection 

Memo at 2. In this case, we made 

available to the companies who were 

not selected, the separate rates 

application and certification, which 

were put on the Department’s Web site. 

See 5th AR Initiation, dated September 

30, 2008. Those companies which did 

not apply for separate rates will 

continue to be part of the Vietnam-wide 

entity. Because the Department 

determines preliminarily that there were 

exports of merchandise under review 

from Vietnam producers/exporters that 

did not demonstrate their eligibility for 

separate-rate status, the Vietnam-wide 

entity is now under review. 

Separate Rates 

A designation as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) remains in effect 

until it is revoked by the Department. 

See section 771(18)(C) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). 

Accordingly, there is a rebuttable 

presumption that all companies within 

Vietnam are subject to government 

control and, thus, should be assessed a 

single antidumping duty rate. It is the 

Department’s standard policy to assign 

all exporters of the merchandise subject 

to review in NME countries a single rate 

unless an exporter can affirmatively 

demonstrate an absence of government 

control, both in law (de jure) and in fact 

(de facto), with respect to exports. To 

establish whether a company is 

sufficiently independent to be entitled 

to a separate, company-specific rate, the 

Department analyzes each exporting 

entity in an NME country under the test 

established in the Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 

Sparklers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) 

(‘‘Sparklers’’), as amplified by the 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’). 

A. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; and (2) any 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of companies. 

Although the Department has 

previously assigned a separate rate to all 

of the companies eligible for a separate 

rate in the instant proceeding, it is the 

Department’s policy to evaluate separate 

rates questionnaire responses each time 

a respondent makes a separate rates 

claim, regardless of whether the 

respondent received a separate rate in 

the past. See Manganese Metal from the 

People’s Republic of China, Final 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Notices 45807 

5East Sea addressed the separate rates section of 

the Department’s questionnaire in its November 25, 

2008, submission as the certification it had 

submitted was no longer valid given that there had 

been a change in ownership and in name. 

6The rate assigned for Agifish was, in ad valorem 

terms, above de minimis. 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). 

In this review, Agifish, Vinh Hoan, 

QVD, and East Sea 5 submitted complete 

separate rates certifications and 

applications. SAMEFICO and 

Cadovimex II provided separate rate 

information in their questionnaire 

responses. The evidence submitted by 

these companies includes government 

laws and regulations on corporate 

ownership, business licenses, and 

narrative information regarding the 

companies’ operations and selection of 

management. The evidence provided by 

these companies support a finding of a 

de jure absence of government control 

over their export activities, based on: (1) 

An absence of restrictive stipulations 

associated with the exporter’s business 

license; and (2) the legal authority on 

the record decentralizing control over 

the respondents. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto government 

control over exports is based on whether 

the respondent: (1) Sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and other exporters; (2) retains the 

proceeds from its export sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) has autonomy from 

the government regarding the selection 

of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 

FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

In this review, Agifish, Vinh Hoan, 

QVD, SAMEFICO, Cadovimex II, and 

East Sea submitted evidence indicating 

an absence of de facto government 

control over their export activities. 

Specifically, this evidence indicates 

that: (1) Each company sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) each 

company retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) each company 

has a general manager, branch manager 

or division manager with the authority 

to negotiate and bind the company in an 

agreement; (4) the general managers are 

selected by the board of directors or 

company employees, and the general 

managers appoint the deputy managers 

and the manager of each department; 

and (5) there is no restriction on any of 

the companies’ use of export revenues. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Agifish, Vinh Hoan, QVD, and 

East Sea have established prima facie 

that they qualify for separate rates under 

the criteria established by Silicon 

Carbide and Sparklers. 

Rate for Non-Selected Companies 

In this review there are two 

companies that were not selected for 

individual examination, East Sea and 

Agifish. The statute and the 

Department’s regulations do not address 

the establishment of a rate to be applied 

to individual companies not selected for 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally 

we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation, for guidance when 

calculating the rate for respondents we 

did not examine in an administrative 

review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

instructs that we are not to calculate an 

all-others rate using any zero or de 

minimis margins or any margins based 

entirely on facts available. Accordingly, 

the Department’s practice in this regard, 

in reviews involving limited respondent 

selection based on exporters accounting 

for the largest volumes of trade, has 

been to average the rates for the selected 

companies, excluding zero and de 

minimis rates and rates based entirely 

on facts available. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and 

Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52273, 52275 (September 9, 2008) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6 (‘‘Shrimp 

from Vietnam I & D’’). Section 

735(c)(5)(B) of the Act also provides 

that, where all margins are zero, de 

minimis, or based entirely on facts 

available, we may use ‘‘any reasonable 

method’’ for assigning the rate to nonselected respondents, including 

‘‘averaging the estimated weighted 

average dumping margins determined 

for the exporters and producers 

individually investigated.’’ 

In this case, the rates for both 

individually examined respondents are 

de minimis and accordingly, the 

Department will determine a reasonable 

method for assigning a rate to East Sea 

and Agifish. The Department has 

available in administrative reviews 

information that would not be available 

in an investigation, namely rates from 

prior administrative and new shipper 

reviews. Accordingly, since the 

determination in the investigation in 

this proceeding, the Department has 

determined that in cases where we have 

found dumping margins in previous 

segments of a proceeding, a reasonable 

method for determining the rate for nonselected companies is to use the most 

recent rate calculated for the nonselected company in question unless we 

calculated in a more recent review a rate 

for any company that was not zero, de 

minimis or based entirely on facts 

available. See Shrimp from Vietnam I & 

D at Comment 6; Ball Bearings and Parts 

Thereof from France, Germany, Italy, 

Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Rescission 

of Review in Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 

(September 11, 2008) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 6; Certain Fish Fillets from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Notice of Preliminary Results of the New 

Shipper Review and Fourth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of the 

Fourth Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52015 (September 8, 2008) (changed in 

final results as final calculated rate for 

mandatory respondent was above de 

minimis, which remained unchanged in 

the amended final results); see also 

Certain Polyester Staple Fiber From the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and 

Extension of Time Limits for the Final 

Results, 74 FR 32125 (July 7, 2009). 

Agifish recently received an assigned 

non-de minimis per-unit rate of $0.02 

per kilogram in an antidumping duty 

new shipper and administrative 

review.6 See Notice of Amended Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from Vietnam (‘‘4th AR 

Final’’), 74 FR 17816 (April 17, 2009). 

We have assigned a non-selected 

separate rate of $0.02 per kilogram for 

Agifish and East Sea for the purposes of 

these preliminary results, as it is the 

assigned rate from the most recently 

completed segment of the proceeding 

that is above de minimis and not based 

on adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’). The 

$0.02 per kilogram is a non-de minimis 

per unit rate. For the Vietnam-wide 

entity, we have assigned the entity’s 

current rate and only rate ever 

determined for the entity in this 

proceeding, which is $2.11 per 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
45808 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Notices 

7Until 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. Until February 1, 2007, these 

products were classifiable under tariff article code 

0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species 

Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. 

8See Memorandum from Kelly Parkhill, Acting 

Director of Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam): Request for a List 

of Surrogate Countries (‘‘Surrogate Country List’’) 

(January 15, 2009). 

kilogram, which is a non-de minimis 

per-unit rate. 

Verification 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we 

conducted verification of the sales and 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) for 

SAMEFICO between April 13–15, 2009, 

in Tra Vinh City Vietnam. See 

Memorandum to the File from Alexis 

Polovina and Timothy Lord, Case 

Analysts through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Verification of the 

Sales and Processing Response of 

Saigon-Mekong Fishery Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘SAMEFICO’’) in the Antidumping 

New Shipper Review of Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’), dated June 30, 

2009 (‘‘SAMEFICO Verification 

Report’’). We conducted a verification of 

the sales and FOP for Vinh Hoan 

between June 22 and July 1, 2009 in Cao 

Lanh, Dong Thap Province and in Ho 

Chi Minh City Vietnam. See 

Memorandum to the File from Javier 

Barrientos and Alan Ray, Senior and 

Case Analysts, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Verification of the 

Sales and Processing Response of Vinh 

Hoan Co., Ltd/Corp. (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’) in 

the Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

and Administrative Reviews of Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’), dated 

August 28, 2009 (‘‘Vinh Hoan 

Verification Report’’). 

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 codes 

1604.19.4000, 1604.19.5000, 

0305.59.4000, 0304.29.6033 (Frozen 

Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius 

including basa and tra) of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).7 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 the Order is 

dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act (‘‘the Act’’), any determination 

that a foreign country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See Notice of Final Results of 

Administrative Review: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam, 73 FR 15479 (March 17, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum (‘‘3rd AR Final 

Results’’). None of the parties to this 

proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On April 2, 2009, the Department sent 

interested parties a letter setting a 

deadline to submit comments on 

surrogate country selection and 

information pertaining to valuing factors 

of production (‘‘FOP’’). QVD, 

Cadovimex II, SAMEFICO, and 

Petitioners submitted surrogate country 

comments and surrogate value data on 

April 20, 2009. On April 30, 2009, 

Respondents submitted a rebuttal to 

Petitioners’ comments. On August 10, 

2009, Respondents reiterated their April 

20 and April 30, 2009, comments. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are: (1) At a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below and in the Memorandum to the 

File through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Alexis Polovina, 

Case Analyst, dated August 27, 2009. 

The Department determined that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, 

the Philippines, and Sri Lanka are 

countries comparable to Vietnam in 

terms of economic development.8 Once 

it has identified economically 

comparable countries, the Department’s 

practice is to select an appropriate 

surrogate country from the list based on 

the availability and reliability of data 

from the countries. See Department 

Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market 

Economy Surrogate Country Selection 

Process (March 1, 2004). 

In this case, we have found that 

Bangladesh is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise. We find 

Bangladesh to be a reliable source for 

surrogate values because Bangladesh is 

at a similar level of economic 

development pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, 

and has more complete publicly 

available and reliable data. Thus, we 

have selected Bangladesh as the primary 

surrogate country for this administrative 

review. However, in certain instances 

where Bangladeshi data was not 

available, we looked to see if Philippine 

data was available, and if not, we used 

data from Indian or Indonesian sources. 

For a more complete explanation of the 

surrogate country selection, see 

Memorandum to the File, through James 

C. Doyle, Office 9 Director, through Alex 

Villanueva, Office 9 Program Manager, 

from Timothy Lord, Office 9 Case 

Analyst, dated August 28, 2009, Fifth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Aligned Fourth New 

Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Notices 45809 

Vietnam: Selection of a Surrogate 

Country (‘‘Surrogate Value Memo’’). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

an antidumping administrative review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Affiliations 

Section 771 (33) of the Act provides 

that: 

The following persons shall be 

considered to be ‘affiliated’ or ‘affiliated 

persons’: 

(A) Members of a family, including 

brothers and sisters (whether by the 

whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, 

and lineal descendants; 

(B) Any officer of director of an 

organization and such organization; 

(C) Partners; 

(D) Employer and employee; 

(E) Any person directly or indirectly 

owning, controlling, or holding with 

power to vote, 5 percent or more of the 

outstanding voting stock or shares of 

any organization and such organization; 

(F) Two or more persons directly or 

indirectly controlling, controlled by, or 

under common control with, any 

person; 

(G) Any person who controls any 

other person and such other person. 

Additionally, section 771(33) of the 

Act stipulates that: ‘‘For purposes of this 

paragraph, a person shall be considered 

to control another person if the person 

is legally or operationally in a position 

to exercise restrain or direction over the 

other person.’’ 

In the final results of the third 

antidumping duty administrative 

review, the Department determined that 

QVD Choi Moi Farming Cooperative 

(‘‘QVD Choi Moi’’) would no longer be 

collapsed with QVD, QVD DT, and 

Thuan Hung, pursuat to sections 

771(33)(A), (B), (E), (F), and (G) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.401(f). See 

Memorandum to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary: Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results of the Administrative Review: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’) (‘‘3rd I & D’’) (March 17, 

2008). The Department also determined 

that QVD USA is affiliated with QVD, 

QVD Dong Thap, and Thuan Hung 

pursuant to sections 771(33)(A), (B), (E), 

(F), and (G) of the Act. Therefore, the 

Department determined to calculate a 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) 

through QVD USA to its first 

unaffiliated U.S. customer. See 3rd I & 

D at Comment 5. The Department also 

determined that Beaver Street Fisheries 

(‘‘BSF’’) and QVD USA were not 

affiliated. See Id. 

In QVD’s Section A Questionnaire 

Response, it stated that during the POR 

‘‘the QVD shareholders sold the land 

and all shareholdings in QVD Choi Moi 

on May 4, 2008.’’ See QVD’s December 

4, 2008, Section A Questionnaire at 3. 

Therefore, based on the record evidence 

in this review we find find QVD Choi 

Moi is no longer affiliated with QVD 

entities as of May 4, 2008. 

For these preliminary results, based 

on the information on the record of this 

proceeding, the Department continues 

to find that QVD, QVD DT, and Thuan 

Hung should be collapsed and treated as 

a single entity. See 3rd I & D at 

Comment 5. Similarly, for these 

preliminary results, based on the 

information on the record of this 

proceeding, the Department continues 

to find that QVD and QVD USA are 

affiliated pursuant to sections 

771(33)(A), (B), (E), (F), and (G) of the 

Act. For these preliminary results, we 

also continue to find that BSF and QVD 

USA are not affiliated. 

Based on evidence submitted by Vinh 

Hoan and explained at verification, we 

preliminarily find that Vinh Hoan is 

affiliated Vinh Hoan 1 Feed Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Vinh Hoan Feed’’) and Van 

Duc, pursuant to section 771(33) of the 

Act. Because much of the facts 

underlying this determination are 

business proprietary, for a detailed 

discussion of affiliations, please see 

Vinh Hoan Verification Report at pages 

4–8 and 15–18. In addition, based on 

evidence found at verification of Vinh 

Hoan, we preliminarily find that Vinh 

Hoan, and Van Duc, but not Vinh Hoan 

Feed, should be treated as a single entity 

for purposes of this new shipper review. 

See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1). 

Also based on evidence submitted by 

Vinh Hoan and explained at 

verification, we preliminarily find that 

Vinh Hoan is affiliated Vinh Hoan USA, 

pursuant to section 771(33) of the Act. 

Id. 

Based on evidence submitted by 

Cadovimex II in their questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find that 

Cadovimex II is affiliated with 

Oceanwide Seafood, LLC 

(‘‘Oceanwide’’), pursuant to section 

771(33) of the Act. Id. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of the 

subject merchandise made by QVD, 

Vinh Hoan, SAMEFICO or Cadovimex II 

to the United States were at prices 

below NV, we compared each 

company’s export price (‘‘EP’’) or CEP, 

where appropriate, to NV, as described 

below. 

U.S. Price 

For SAMEFICO’s and Vinh Hoan’s EP 

sales, we used the EP methodology, 

pursuant to section 772(a) of the Act, 

because the first sale to an unaffiliated 

purchaser was made prior to 

importation and CEP was not otherwise 

warranted by the facts on the record. We 

calculated EP based on the Free-onboard foreign port price to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. For the EP sales, we also 

deducted foreign inland freight, foreign 

cold storage, and international ocean 

freight from the starting price (or gross 

unit price), in accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we used the CEP methodology 

when the first sale to an unaffiliated 

purchaser occurred after importation of 

the merchandise into the United States. 

In this instance, we calculated CEP for 

all of QVD’s, Cadovimex II’s, and Vinh 

Hoan’s U.S. sales through their 

respective U.S. affiliates, QVD USA, 

Oceanwide, and Vinh Hoan USA to 

unaffiliated customers. 

For QVD’s, Cadovimex II’s, and Vinh 

Hoan’s CEP sales, we made adjustments 

to the gross unit price for billing 

adjustments, rebates, foreign inland 

freight, international freight, foreign 

cold storage, U.S. marine insurance, 

U.S. inland freight, U.S. warehousing, 

U.S. inland insurance, other U.S. 

transportation expenses, and U.S. 

customs duties. In accordance with 

section 772(d)(1) of the Act, we also 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including commissions, credit expenses, 

advertising expenses, indirect selling 

expenses, inventory carrying costs, and 

U.S. re-packing costs. We also made an 

adjustment for profit in accordance with 

section 772(d)(3) of the Act. 

Where movement expenses were 

provided by NME-service providers or 

paid for in NME currency, we valued 

these services using either Bangladeshi 

or Indian surrogate values. See 

Surrogate Value Memo. Where 

applicable, we used the actual reported 

expense for those movement expenses 

provided by ME suppliers and paid for 

in ME currency. 

Bona Fide New Shipper Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated the bona fide 

nature of the sales made by SAMEFICO 

and Cadovimex II for the new shipper 

review. In evaluating whether a sale is 

bona fide, the Department considers, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
45810 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Notices 

9This rate is applicable to the QVD Single Entity 

which includes QVD, QVD DT, and Thuan Hung. 

inter alia, such factors as: (1) The timing 

of the sale; (2) the price and quantity; (3) 

the expenses arising from the 

transaction; (4) whether the goods were 

resold at a profit; and (5) whether the 

transaction was made on an arms-length 

basis. We preliminarily find that the 

new shipper sales made by SAMEFICO 

and Cadovimex II are bona fide 

transactions. See Memo to the File 

Through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9 from Alexis Polovina, 

Case Analyst: Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale 

Under Review for Saigon-Mekong 

Fishery Co., Ltd. and Memo to the File 

Through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9 from Tim Lord, Case 

Analyst: Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale 

Under Review for Cadovimex II Seafood 

Import-Export & Processing Joint Stock 

Company, dated August 27, 2009. Based 

on our investigation into the bona fide 

nature of the sales, the questionnaire 

responses submitted by SAMEFICO and 

Cadovimex, as well the companies’ 

eligibility for a separate rate (see 

‘‘Separate Rates’’ section above), and the 

Department’s preliminary determination 

that SAMEFICO and Cadovimex II were 

not affiliated with any exporter or 

producer that had previously shipped 

subject merchandise to the United 

States, we preliminarily determine that 

SAMEFICO and Cadovimex II have met 

the requirements to qualify as new 

shippers during the POR. Therefore, for 

purposes of these preliminary results of 

review, we are treating SAMEFICO’s 

and Cadovimex II’s respective sales of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States as appropriate transactions for 

this new shipper review. We will 

continue to evaluate all aspects of 

SAMEFICO’s and Cadovimex II’s sales 

during the final results. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an FOP methodology if the merchandise 

is exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. Because information on the 

record does not permit the calculation 

of NV using home-market prices, thirdcountry prices, or constructed value and 

no party has argued otherwise, we 

calculated NV based on FOPs reported 

by QVD, Vinh Hoan, SAMEFICO, and 

Cadovimex II, pursuant to sections 

773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.408(c). 

As the basis for NV, QVD, Vinh Hoan, 

SAMEFICO, and Cadovimex II provided 

FOPs used in each of the stages for 

processing frozen fish fillets. Our 

general policy, consistent with section 

773(c)(1)(B) of the Act, is to value the 

FOPs that a respondent uses to produce 

the subject merchandise. 

To calculate NV, we valued QVD’s, 

Vinh Hoan’s, SAMEFICO’s, and 

Cadovimex II’s reported per-unit factor 

quantities using publicly available 

Bangladeshi, Philippine, Indian, and 

Indonesian surrogate values. Bangladesh 

was our first surrogate country source 

from which to obtain data to value 

inputs, and when data was not available 

from there, we used Philippine, Indian, 

or Indonesian sources. In selecting 

surrogate values, we considered the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the available values. 

As appropriate, we adjusted the value of 

material inputs to account for delivery 

costs. Specifically, we added surrogate 

freight costs to surrogate values using 

the reported distances from the Vietnam 

port to the Vietnam factory or from the 

domestic supplier to the factory, where 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the 

CAFC in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 

117 F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). 

For those values not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted for inflation using data 

published in the International Monetary 

Fund’s International Financial 

Statistics. Import data from South 

Korea, Thailand and Indonesia were 

excluded from the surrogate country 

import data due to generally available 

export subsidies. See China Nat’l Mach. 

Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 

CIT 01–1114, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 

2003), aff’d 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004), and Certain Cut-to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: 

Notice of Final Results and Final Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651, 

and accompanying issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4 (March 15, 

2005). Additionally, we excluded prices 

from NME countries and imports that 

were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ Asian country. The 

Department excluded these imports 

because it could not ascertain whether 

they were from either an NME country 

or a country with general export 

subsidies. We converted the surrogate 

values to U.S. dollars as appropriate, 

using the official exchange rate recorded 

on the dates of sale of subject 

merchandise in this case, obtained from 

http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. For further detail, see 

Surrogate Values Memo. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

margins exist for the period August 1, 

2007, through July 31, 2008: 

CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM

VIETNAM

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage margin 

(dollars 

per kilogram) 

QVD 9 ................................ 0.00 

Vinh Hoan ......................... 0.00 

Agifish ............................... 0.02 

SAMEFICO ....................... 0.00 

Cadovimex II ..................... 0.00 

East Sea ........................... 0.02 

Vietnam-wide Entity .......... 2.11 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties of this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within ten days of 

the date of announcement of the 

preliminary results. An interested party 

may request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested 

parties may submit written comments 

(case briefs) within 30 days of 

publication of the preliminary results 

and rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), 

which must be limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, within five days after 

the time limit for filing case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 19 CFR 

351.309(d). Parties who submit 

arguments are requested to submit with 

the argument: (1) A statement of the 

issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

Further, the Department requests that 

parties submitting written comments 

provide the Department with a diskette 

containing the public version of those 

comments. Unless the deadline is 

extended pursuant to section 

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

will issue the final results of this 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 171 / Friday, September 4, 2009 / Notices 45811 

10We divided the total dumping margins 

(calculated as the difference between NV and EP or 

CEP) for each importer by the total quantity of 

subject merchandise sold to that importer during 

the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. 

We will direct CBP to assess importer-specific 

assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit 

(i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms 

of each entry of the subject merchandise during the 

POR. 

administrative review, including the 

results of our analysis of the issues 

raised by the parties in their comments, 

within 120 days of publication of the 

preliminary results. The assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by this review and 

future deposits of estimated duties shall 

be based on the final results of this 

review. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of this 

administrative review, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b), the Department will 

calculate an assessment rate on all 

appropriate entries. For the mandatory 

respondents, QVD and Vinh Hoan, and 

new shippers, SAMEFICO and 

Cadovimex II, we will calculate 

importer-specific duty assessment rates 

on a per-unit basis.10 Where the 

assessment rate is de minimis, we will 

instruct CBP to assess no duties on all 

entries of subject merchandise by that 

importer. We will instruct CBP to 

liquidate entries containing 

merchandise from the PRC-wide entity 

at the PRC-wide rate we determine in 

the final results of review. We will issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of the final 

results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporters listed above, except for 

Cadovimex II and SAMEFICO, the cash 

deposit rate will be that established in 

the final results of this review (except, 

if the rate is zero or de minimis, the cash 

deposit will be zero); (2) for previously 

investigated or reviewed Vietnam and 

non-Vietnam exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all Vietnam 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the Vietnam-wide rate of $2.11 per 

kilogram; and (4) for all non-Vietnam 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the Vietnam exporters that 

supplied that non-Vietnam exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

further notice. 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for all shipments of subject 

merchandise from new shippers 

Cadovimex II or SAMEFICO entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

Cadovimex II or produced and exported 

by SAMEFICO, the cash deposit rate 

will be zero; (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by Cadovimex II or SAMEFICO 

but not manufactured by Cadovimex II 

or SAMEFICO, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the Vietnam-wide rate 

(i.e., $2.11 per kilogram); and (3) for 

subject merchandise manufactured by 

Cadovimex II or SAMEFICO, but 

exported by any other party, the cash 

deposit rate will be the rate applicable 

to the exporter. If the cash deposit rate 

calculated in the final results is zero or 

de minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required for those specific producerexporter combinations. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this POR. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: August 28, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–21429 Filed 9–3–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(C–552–805) 

Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing 

Duty Determination and Alignment of 

Final Countervailing Duty 

Determination with Final Antidumping 

Duty Determination 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) preliminarily 

determines that countervailable 

subsidies are being provided to 

producers and exporters of polyethylene 

retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(Vietnam). For information on the 

estimated subsidy rates, see the 

‘‘Suspension of Liquidation’’ section of 

this notice. This notice also serves to 

align the final countervailing duty 

(CVD) determination in this 

investigation with the final 

determination in the companion 

antidumping duty (AD) investigation of 

PRCBs from Vietnam. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 4, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jun 

Jack Zhao or Gene Calvert, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1396 and (202) 

482–3586, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The following events have occurred 

since the April 20, 2009 initiation of 

this investigation. See Polyethylene 

Retail Carrier Bags From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 

Countervailing Duty Investigation and 

Request for Public Comment on the 

Application of the Countervailing Duty 

Law to Imports From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam, 74 FR 19064 

(April 27, 2009) (Initiation Notice). 

On April 21, 2009, the Department 

met with officials of the government of 

Vietnam (GOV) to provide an overview 

of the procedures and timetable of the 

investigation. See Memorandum to 

Barbara E. Tillman, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 6, ‘‘Meeting with the 

Government of Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (GOV): Countervailing Duty 

Investigation of Polyethylene Retail 

Carrier Bags from the Socialist Republic 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES