47198 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

1Carpenter Technology Corp.; Crucible Specialty 

Metals, a division of Crucible Materials Corp.; 

Electralloy Co., a G.O. Carlson, Inc. company; and 

Valbruna Slater Stainless. 2See Preliminary Results, 74 FR 9788. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–810] 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 6, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published the 

preliminary results of the administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on stainless steel bar (‘‘SSB’’) from 

India. This review covers sales of SSB 

from India with respect to one 

producer/exporter: Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Venus’’) during 

the period February 1, 2007, through 

January 31, 2008. 

We have noted the changes made 

since the preliminary results in the 

‘‘Changes Since the Preliminary 

Results’’ section, below. The final 

results are listed below in the ‘‘Final 

Results of Review’’ section. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Erika McDonald or Brandon Farlander, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–5761 and (202) 

482–0182, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 6, 2009, the Department 

published Stainless Steel Bar From 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 74 FR 9787 (March 6, 2009) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’) in the Federal 

Register. 

Following the Preliminary Results, the 

Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Venus in March and 

April 2009. The Department received 

Venus’ responses in March, April and 

May 2009. On April 27, 2009, the 

Department published a notice 

extending the deadline for these final 

results to September 2, 2009. See 

Stainless Steel Bar From India: 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results of the 2007–2008 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 74 FR 

19048 (April 27, 2009). 

Department officials met with counsel 

to Petitioners 1 to discuss issues 

pertaining to Venus’ relationship with 

AMS Specialty Steel (‘‘AMS’’) on May 

20, 2009. See Memorandum from Erika 

McDonald, ‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with 

Counsel to Petitioners,’’ dated May 20, 

2009. 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

preliminarily determined to treat Venus 

and its affiliate Sieves Manufacturing 

Pvt. Ltd. (‘‘Sieves’’) as a single entity for 

this review.2 We further announced our 

intention to seek additional information 

regarding the relationship of these 

companies and the types of 

merchandise sold by Sieves to use in the 

final results. On July 17, 2009, we 

issued our post-preliminary results 

calculation memorandum regarding 

Sieves based on the totality of 

information submitted by interested 

parties. See Memorandum to File, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, entitled ‘‘PostPreliminary Results Calculation 

Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries 

Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated July 17, 2009, which is 

on file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’) in room 1117 of the main 

Department building. On July 23, 2009, 

the Department amended its postpreliminary results. See Memorandum 

to the File from Erika McDonald, 

‘‘Correction to the Post-Preliminary 

Results Calculation Memorandum for 

Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd.’’ dated 

July 23, 2009, which is on file in the 

CRU. 

We met with counsel to Petitioners 

regarding Venus’ affilation with 

Hindustan Stainless (‘‘Hindustan’’) and 

Sieves on July 20, 2009. See 

Memorandum from Erika McDonald, 

‘‘Ex-Parte Meeting with Counsel to 

Petitioners,’’ dated July 20, 2009. 

We invited interested parties to 

comment on the Preliminary Results. On 

July 31, 2009, Venus filed its case brief 

which contained business proprietary 

information under the one-day lag rule. 

On August 3, 2009, Venus filed 

attachments to its case brief that were 

omitted from its original case brief 

submitted on July 31, 2009. On August 

5, 2009, the Department notified Venus 

that it was rejecting its case brief 

because the copy of the case brief filed 

on July 31, 2009, was not identical to 

the business proprietary copy filed on 

August 3, 2009, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.303(c)(2). 

The Department permitted Venus to 

resubmit its case brief with bracketing 

corrections to its July 31, 2009 

submission, but excluding the 

attachments because the attachments 

were determined to contain new factual 

information. See Letter from Brandon 

Farlander to Venus, dated August 5, 

2009, and Letter from Brandon 

Farlander to Venus, dated August 6, 

2009. Venus resubmitted its case brief 

on August 6, 2009. On August 3, 2009, 

Petitioners filed a case brief. On August 

11, 2009, Petitioners and Venus filed 

rebuttal briefs. We held a hearing on 

August 13, 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

Imports covered by the order are 

shipments of SSB. SSB means articles of 

stainless steel in straight lengths that 

have been either hot-rolled, forged, 

turned, cold-drawn, cold-rolled or 

otherwise cold-finished, or ground, 

having a uniform solid cross section 

along their whole length in the shape of 

circles, segments of circles, ovals, 

rectangles (including squares), triangles, 

hexagons, octagons, or other convex 

polygons. SSB includes cold-finished 

SSBs that are turned or ground in 

straight lengths, whether produced from 

hot-rolled bar or from straightened and 

cut rod or wire, and reinforcing bars that 

have indentations, ribs, grooves, or 

other deformations produced during the 

rolling process. 

Except as specified above, the term 

does not include stainless steel semifinished products, cut-to-length flatrolled products (i.e., cut-to-length rolled 

products which if less than 4.75 mm in 

thickness have a width measuring at 

least 10 times the thickness, or if 4.75 

mm or more in thickness having a width 

which exceeds 150 mm and measures at 

least twice the thickness), wire (i.e., 

cold-formed products in coils, of any 

uniform solid cross section along their 

whole length, which do not conform to 

the definition of flat-rolled products), 

and angles, shapes, and sections. 

The SSB subject to this review is 

currently classifiable under subheadings 

7222.11.00.05, 7222.11.00.50, 

7222.19.00.05, 7222.19.00.50, 

7222.20.00.05, 7222.20.00.45, 

7222.20.00.75, and 7222.30.00.00 of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’). Although the 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes, our 

written description of the scope of the 

order is dispositive. 

On May 23, 2005, the Department 

issued a final scope ruling that SSB 

manufactured in the United Arab 

Emirates out of stainless steel wire rod 

from India is not subject to the scope of 

the order. See Memorandum from Team 

to Barbara E. Tillman, ‘‘Antidumping 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47199 

3Timken U.S. Corp. v. United States, 434 F.3d 

1345 (Federal Circuit 2006) (‘‘Timken’’). See also, 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, and Final Determination to 

Revoke the Order In Part: Individually Quick Frozen 

Red Raspberries from Chile, 72 FR 6524 (February 

12, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 15 (where the 

Department accepted a correction to a respondent’s 

sales database seventy days before the final results 

affording petitioners sufficient time to comment). 

Duty Orders on Stainless Steel Bar from 

India and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from 

India: Final Scope Ruling,’’ dated May 

23, 2005, which is on file in the CRU. 

See also Notice of Scope Rulings, 70 FR 

55110 (September 20, 2005). 

Period of Review 

The period of review (‘‘POR’’) is 

February 1, 2007, through January 31, 

2008. 

Applicable Statute 

Unless otherwise indicated, all 

statutory citations are to the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’). In 

addition, all references to the 

Department of Commerce’s regulations 

are to 19 CFR Part 351. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this review 

are addressed in the September 2, 2009, 

‘‘Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

2007–2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Stainless 

Steel Bar from India’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Attached to this 

notice as an appendix is a list of the 

issues which parties have raised and to 

which we have responded in the 

Decision Memorandum. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of all issues 

raised in this review and the 

corresponding recommendations in this 

public memorandum, which is on file in 

the Department’s CRU. In addition, a 

complete version of the Decision 

Memorandum can be accessed directly 

on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the Decision Memorandum are 

identical in content. 

Affiliation 

Precision Metals 

Consistent with the Preliminary 

Results, we find that, based on Venus’ 

representations that its corporate 

affiliation relationship with Precision 

Metals remained the same during the 

POR as during the 2005–2006 

administrative review, Venus and 

Precision Metals should be treated as a 

single entity in the current proceeding. 

See Memorandum from Brandon 

Farlander to the File, ‘‘Relationship of 

Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd. and 

Precision Metals,’’ dated January 9, 

2009, which is on file in the CRU. 

Sieves 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department preliminarily found that 

Venus and its affiliate Sieves met the 

criteria set forth under 19 CFR 

351.401(f) and, therefore, preliminarily 

determined that Venus and Sieves 

should be treated as a single entity in 

this review. See Memorandum from 

Scott Holland to Susan Kuhbach, Office 

Director, ‘‘Whether to Treat Venus Wire 

Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Sieves 

Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. as a Single 

Entity,’’ dated March 2, 2009, which is 

on file in the CRU. We requested, and 

Sieves provided, additional information 

regarding the relationship of these 

companies and the types of 

merchandise sold by Sieves. 

After considering all of the 

information submitted by interested 

parties in this proceeding, we continue 

to find that Venus and Sieves meet the 

criteria established under 19 CFR 

351.401(f) and should be treated as a 

single entity in this review for the final 

results. A full discussion of this issue is 

presented in the Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 1. 

AMS Specialty Steel 

Venus reported that AMS was an 

unaffiliated U.S. customer and that 

Venus did not pay commissions to 

AMS, nor was AMS a sales agent for 

Venus during the POR. Petitioners claim 

that these statements by Venus are false 

and that Venus does have a relationship 

with AMS, including that of 

commissioned agent. In addition, 

Petitioners contend that Venus 

incorrectly reported sales to AMS, as the 

U.S. customer, when it should have 

reported the first U.S. sale to AMS’ 

unaffiliated U.S. customer. Because of 

this error, according to Petitioners, 

Venus has reported wrong sales data to 

the Department for Venus’ sales through 

AMS. See Petitioners’ January 21, 2009, 

submission at 2–4. 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department found that AMS was not 

Venus’ agent. Petitioners submitted a 

letter on May 20, 2009, reiterating their 

arguments on the relationship between 

Venus and AMS. Because of the 

proprietary nature of the information 

submitted by Petitioners in their 

allegation, a full discussion of these 

issues is presented in the final results 

calculation memorandum. See 

Memorandum from the Team to the File 

‘‘Final Results Calculation 

Memorandum for Venus Wire Industries 

Pvt. Ltd.,’’ dated September 2, 2009 

(‘‘Venus Final Results Calculation 

Memorandum’’). 

After considering all of the 

information submitted by interested 

parties in this proceeding, we continue 

to find that AMS was not Venus’ agent 

during the POR. A full discussion of this 

issue is presented in the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of comments 

received, we have made adjustments to 

the Preliminary Results calculations for 

Venus and the post-preliminary results 

regarding Sieves. Brief descriptions of 

the company-specific changes are 

provided below. 

A. Cost of Production 

For the final results, we are relying on 

Venus’ March 16, 2009, cost database 

and Sieves’s July 8, 2009, cost database 

except for the following: (1) We adjusted 

Sieves’s submitted interest expenses 

ratio to reflect market interest rates on 

its loans from affiliated parties; (2) we 

adjusted Sieves’ cost database to reflect 

market prices for its purchases from an 

affiliate; in accordance with section 

773(f)(2) of the Act; (3) as noted above, 

we are collapsing Venus and Sieves. 

Accordingly, we are treating them as 

one respondent and, therefore, we have 

weight-averaged the adjusted costs of 

Venus and Sieves for the final results. 

See Memorandum to Neal Harper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Adjustments for the Final Results’’ 

dated September 2, 2009. 

B. Billing Adjustments 

On March 24, 2009, Venus requested 

it be allowed to revise its U.S. sales 

database to reflect billing adjustments 

due to an inadvertent accounting error. 

In that submission, Venus supplied 

documentation to support its claim. 

Petitioners submitted comments on 

Venus’ request on April 3, 2009. The 

Department requested additional 

information from Venus regarding the 

billing adjustment on April 23, 2009. 

Venus submitted the requested 

information on May 8, 2009. 

After reviewing the information 

submitted by Venus, we determine that 

Venus has sufficiently supported its 

claim. Therefore, consistent with 

Timken 3 and the Department’s past 

practice, we are making the changes to 

Venus’ U.S. sales database to reflect the 

billing adjustments on the relevant sales 

for the final results. A full discussion of 

this issue is presented in the Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 5 and Venus 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47200 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

Final Results Calculation Memorandum 

at 4. 

Moreover, because the billing 

adjustments affect the gross unit prices 

for these sales, we are adjusting the 

reported credit expenses and indirect 

selling expenses for these sales for the 

final results. See Venus Final Results 

Calculation Memorandum at 5. 

Results of the COP Test 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C) of the 

Act, where less than 20 percent of a 

respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the cost of 

production (‘‘COP’’), we did not 

disregard any below-cost sales of that 

product because we determined that the 

below-cost sales were not made in 

substantial quantities. Where 20 percent 

or more of a respondent’s sales of a 

given product during the POR were at 

prices less than the COP, we determined 

such sales of that model were made in 

substantial quantities within an 

extended period of time in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act. Because we compared prices to the 

POR-average COP, we also determined 

that such sales were not made at prices 

which would permit recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time, 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) 

of the Act. In such cases, for Venus, we 

disregarded these below-cost sales of a 

given product and used the remaining 

sales as the basis for determining 

normal value, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

Final Results of Review 

As a final result of our review, we 

find that the following weighted-average 

percentage margins exist for the period 

February 1, 2007, through January 31, 

2008: 

Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average 

margin percentage 

Venus Wire Industries Pvt. Ltd./Precision Metals/Sieves Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd .................................................................. 0.09 (de minimis). 

Assessment Rates 

The Department shall determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. For 

Venus, the Department intends to issue 

appropriate assessment instructions 

directly to CBP 15 days after publication 

of the final results of review. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for 

all sales made by respondents for which 

they have reported the importer of 

record and the entered value of the U.S. 

sales, we have calculated importerspecific assessment rates based on the 

ratio of the total amount of antidumping 

duties calculated for the examined sales 

to the total entered value of those sales. 

We have used Venus’ reported entered 

values for the final results. 

To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates were de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we 

calculated importer-specific ad valorem 

rates based on Venus’ entered values. 

Where the assessment rate is above de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess 

duties on all entries of subject 

merchandise by that importer. Pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate without regard to 

antidumping duties any entries for 

which the assessment rate is de minimis 

(i.e., less than 0.50 percent). 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003). This 

clarification applies to entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR produced 

by the respondent for which it did not 

know its merchandise was destined for 

the United States. In such instances, we 

will instruct CBP to liquidate 

unreviewed entries at the all-others rate 

if there is no rate for the intermediate 

company(ies) involved in the 

transaction. For a full discussion of this 

clarification, see Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following antidumping duty 

deposits are effective for all shipments 

of SSB from India entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption, effective on or after the 

publication date of these final results of 

administrative review, as provided by 

section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) The cash 

deposit rates for the reviewed company 

will be the rate listed above (except no 

cash deposit will be required if a 

company’s weighted-average margin is 

de minimis); (2) for merchandise 

exported by manufacturers or exporters 

not covered in this review but covered 

in the original less-than-fair-value 

investigation or a previous review, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

most recent rate published in the final 

determination or final results for which 

the manufacturer or exporter received 

an individual rate; (3) if the exporter is 

not a firm covered in this review, the 

previous review, or the original 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and (4) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm 

covered in this or any previous reviews, 

the cash deposit rate will be 12.45 

percent, the ‘‘all others’’ rate established 

in the less than fair value investigation. 

See Stainless Steel Bar from India; Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 59 FR 66915 (December 28, 

1994). These cash deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final 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 review period. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Secretary’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APOs’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing these 

final results of review in accordance 

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

the Act. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47201 

1 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

Dated: September 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

List of Comments in the Decision 

Memorandum 

Comment 1: Whether to Collapse Venus and 

Affiliated Producer Sieves 

Comment 2: Whether Certain U.S. Sales by 

Venus are Constructed Export Price 

(‘‘CEP’’) or Export Price (‘‘EP’’) Sales and 

Whether A Principal-Agent Relationship 

Exists 

Comment 3: Alleged Reporting Deficiencies 

for Venus and Sieves 

3a: Bahubali’s and Venus Metal’s 

Involvement in the Production/Sale of 

Stainless Steel Bar 

3b: Hindustan’s Involvement in the 

Production/Sale of Stainless Steel Bar 

3c: Hitech’s Involvement in the 

Production/Sale of Stainless Steel Bar 

3d: Affiliated Party Loans 

3e: Affiliated Party Transactions 

Comment 4: Whether Respondents Failed to 

Follow the Procedural Requirements of 

the Department’s Regulations 

Comment 5: Venus’ Request to Revise Its U.S. 

Sales Database to Reflect a Billing 

Adjustment 

Comment 6: Comparison of Certain Similar 

Merchandise Sold in the Home Market 

Comment 7: Whether Certain Home Market 

Sales are Outside the Ordinary Course of 

Trade and Whether the Department 

Should Make a Level of Trade 

Adjustment 

Comment 8: Offsetting Negative Margins 

Comment 9: Whether to Rely on DoubleBracketed Information 

[FR Doc. E9–22069 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–331–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Ecuador: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 9, 2009, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

Department) published the preliminary 

results of the administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (shrimp) from 

Ecuador. This review covers 81 

producers/exporters of the subject 

merchandise to the United States. The 

period of review (POR) is February 1, 

2007, through August 14, 2007. 

Based on our analysis of the 

comments received, we have made 

certain changes in the margin 

calculations for Promarisco, S.A. 

(Promarisco) and Sociedad Nacional de 

Galapagos, S.A. (Songa), producer/ 

exporters selected for individual review. 

Therefore, the final results for 

Promarisco and Songa differ from the 

preliminary results. The final weighted– 

average dumping margins for the 

reviewed firms are listed below in the 

section entitled ‘‘Final Results of 

Review.’’ 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 15, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–4136 or (202) 482– 

3773, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

This review covers 81 producers/ 

exporters. The respondents which the 

Department selected for individual 

review are Promarisco and Songa. The 

respondents which were not selected for 

individual review are listed in the 

‘‘Final Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

On March 9, 2009, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

preliminary results of the 2007 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on shrimp from 

Ecuador. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Ecuador: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 9983 

(March 9, 2009) (Preliminary Results). 

We invited parties to comment on those 

Preliminary Results. In May 2009, we 

received case briefs from the domestic 

producers of frozen warmwater shrimp 

(i.e., the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action 

Committee, hereafter ‘‘Domestic 

Producers’’), the respondents, 

Promarisco and Songa, and the domestic 

processors of frozen warmwater shrimp 

(‘‘the Processors’’), an interested party 

in this proceeding. Rebuttal briefs were 

received from the Domestic Producers, 

Promarisco, Songa, and the Processors. 

In June 2009, we extended the 

deadline for the final results, due no 

later than September 8, 2009. See 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Ecuador: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for the Final Results of the Third 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 28018 

(June 12, 2009). 

The Department has conducted this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild–caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm–raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head–on or head–off, 

shell–on or peeled, tail–on or tail–off,1

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild– 

caught warmwater species include, but 

are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp 

(Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 

(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn 

(Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 

Excluded from the scope are: 1) 

breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell–on or peeled 

(HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and 8) certain battered shrimp. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES