Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47191 

1 Vietnam Fish-One Co., Ltd. (Vietnam Fish-One) 

aka Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (‘‘Vietnam 

Fish One Co. Ltd.’’) (collectively, ‘‘Fish One’’). 

2Petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action 

Committee. 

3The mandatory respondents are: Minh Phu 

Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliated 

Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood 

Co., Ltd.), Minh Phu Seafood Corporation; Minh 

Phu Seafood Corp., Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., 

Minh Qui Seafood, Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., 

Minh Phat Seafood, (collectively, ‘‘Minh Phu 

Group’’), Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import 

Export Corporation (‘‘Camimex’’), and Phuong Nam 

Co. Ltd. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’). 

4The Domestic Processors are the American 

Shrimp Processors Association (‘‘ASPA’’) and the 

Louisiana Shrimp Association (‘‘LSA’’), 

(collectively, the ‘‘Domestic Processors’’). 

5Here, we refer to a SR Respondent as a company 

upon which we initiated a review, submitted either 

a separate rate certification or application, has been 

cooperative, but was not selected for individual 

review. 

Extension of Time Limit for Preliminary 

Results of Review 

The Department has determined that 

the review is extraordinarily 

complicated as the Department must 

issue additional supplemental 

questionnaires and conduct verification. 

Based on the timing of the case and the 

additional information that must be 

gathered and verified, the preliminary 

results of this new shipper review 

cannot be completed within the 

statutory time limit of 180 days. 

Therefore, the Department is 

extending the time limit for completion 

of the preliminary results of this new 

shipper review by 106 days from the 

original September 16, 2009, deadline. 

The preliminary results will now be due 

no later than December 31, 2009. The 

final results continue to be due 90 days 

after the issuance of the preliminary 

results. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(2)(B)(iv) and 777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: September 8, 2009. 

John M. Andersen, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Operations. 

[FR Doc. E9–22196 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Final Results and Final 

Partial Rescission 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 in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

third administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’). Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Results, 

Preliminary Partial Rescission and 

Request for Revocation, In Part, of the 

Third Administrative Review, 74 FR 

10009 (March 9, 2009) (‘‘Preliminary 

Results’’). We gave interested parties an 

opportunity to comment on the 

Preliminary Results. Based upon our 

analysis of the comments and 

information received, we made changes 

to the margin calculations for the final 

results. We find that certain 

manufacturers/exporters have not sold 

subject merchandise at less than normal 

value (‘‘NV’’) during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) February 1, 2007, 

through January 31, 2008. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 15, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Gorelik, 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) 

482–6905. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On March 9, 2009, the Department 

published the Preliminary Results of 

this administrative review. See 

Preliminary Results. On March 12, 2009, 

we extended the deadline for parties to 

submit the case briefs and rebuttal briefs 

to April 10, 2009 and April 24, 2009, 

respectively. On March 12, 2009, 

Phuong Nam filed a request for a public 

hearing. On March 24, 2009, Fish One,1

a separate rate respondent, filed a 

request for a public hearing. On March 

27, 2009, Petitioner 2 placed on the 

record additional surrogate value 

information. On March 30, 2009, the 

mandatory respondents,3 the Domestic 

Processors,4 and Contessa Premium 

Foods, Inc., (‘‘Contessa’’), a U.S. 

importer, submitted additional surrogate 

value information. On April 6, 2009, 

Minh Phu Group, Camimex, and certain 

separate rate respondents 5 (‘‘SR 

Respondents’’) filed a request for a 

public hearing. On April 8, 2009, the 

Domestic Processors filed a request for 

a hearing. On April 8, 2009, Contessa 

and Petitioner filed letters stating their 

intent to participate in a public hearing 

if one were to be held. On April 10, 

2009, the mandatory respondents, Fish 

One, Petitioner, the Domestic 

Processors, C.P. Vietnam Livestock Co. 

(‘‘CP Vietnam’’), Kim Anh Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Kim Anh’’), Contessa, and certain SR 

Respondents filed case briefs. On April 

24, 2009, the mandatory respondents, 

Fish One, Petitioner, the Domestic 

Processors, and certain SR Respondents 

filed rebuttal briefs. On May 13, 2009, 

Minh Phu Group, Camimex and certain 

SR Respondents refiled the rebuttal brief 

to include missing pages inadvertently 

excluded from the April 24, 2009 

rebuttal brief. On June 4, 2009, the 

Department held a public hearing 

pursuant to section 351.310(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations. On June 22, 

2009, the Department placed on the 

record of this review information 

reported by Minh Phu Group in the 

preceding administrative review. We 

invited comments from interested 

parties regarding this information. No 

interested parties provided comment 

regarding this information. 

On June 4, 2009, the Department 

published a notice extending the 

deadline for the final results of the 

administrative review. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limit for the Final 

Results of the Third Administrative 

Reviews, 74 FR 26839 (June 4, 2009). On 

July 22, 2009, the Department published 

a second notice extending the deadline 

for the final results of the administrative 

review. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for the Final Results of the Third 

Administrative Reviews, 74 FR 36164 

(July 22, 2009). Lastly, on August 31, 

2009, the Department published a third 

notice extending the deadline for the 

final results of the administrative 

review. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for the Final Results of the Third 

Administrative Reviews, 74 FR 44818 

(August 31, 2009). 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this review 

are addressed in Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results of the Third Administrative 

Review, dated September 8, 2009, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47192 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

which is hereby adopted by this notice 

(‘‘Issues and Decision Memo’’). A list of 

the issues which parties raised and to 

which we respond in the Issues and 

Decision Memo is attached to this notice 

as an Appendix. The Issues and 

Decision Memo is a public document 

and is on file in the Central Records 

Unit (‘‘CRU’’), Main Commerce 

Building, Room 1117, and is accessible 

on the Web at http://www.trade.gov/ia. 

The paper copy and electronic version 

of the memorandum are identical in 

content. 

Final Rescission of Review 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department issued a notice of intent to 

rescind this administrative review with 

respect to Vinh Hoan Corporation 

(formerly Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd.) (‘‘Vinh 

Hoan’’) and Quoc Viet Seaproducts 

Processing Trading Import and Export 

Co., Ltd., (‘‘Quoc Viet’’) because the 

information on the record indicated that 

they did not sell subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR. 

Subsequent to the Preliminary Results, 

no information was submitted on the 

record indicating that Vinh Hoan and 

Quoc Viet made sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. Thus, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.213(d)(3) and consistent with 

our practice, we are rescinding this 

review with respect to Vinh Hoan and 

Quoc Viet. 

However, with respect to Kim Anh 

and CP Vietnam, we did not 

preliminarily rescind the administrative 

review pending an analysis of 

additional information requested from 

the companies and U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’). 

Additionally, we preliminarily assigned 

the two companies the Vietnam-wide 

entity rate because Kim Anh and CP 

Vietnam had not provided any 

information on the record to indicate 

their eligibility for a rate separate from 

the Vietnam–wide entity. See 

Preliminary Results at 10011. 

Subsequent to the Preliminary 

Results, the Department placed on the 

record import entry documentation 

obtained from CBP. See Memorandum 

to the File from Irene Gorelik, Analyst, 

Office 9, Re; Third Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: CBP 7501 Entry Packages, 

dated March 4, 2009. The Department 

also invited comment from CP Vietnam 

and Kim Anh regarding the information 

contained within the CBP entry 

documentation. Based on the 

Department’s review of CBP’s entry 

documentation and the companies’ 

subsequent explanations and supporting 

documentation on the record, we have 

determined that it is appropriate to 

rescind the review with respect to CP 

Vietnam and Kim Anh in the final 

results. For further details, see Issues 

and Decision Memo at Comments 18 

and 19, respectively. Thus, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3) 

and consistent with our practice, we are 

rescinding this review with respect to 

CP Vietnam and Kim Anh. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on our analysis of information 

on the record of this review, and 

comments received from the interested 

parties, we have made changes to the 

margin calculations for the mandatory 

respondents. 

We have revised the surrogate values 

for raw shrimp, master cartons, and 

domestic cold storage warehousing. 

Additionally, we have revised 

classifications for certain expenses in 

the surrogate financial ratios used in the 

Preliminary Results. For further details 

see Issues and Decision Memo at 

Comments 6B, 7B, 7F, 9 and 10, 

respectively; see also Memorandum to 

the File through Catherine Bertrand, 

Program Manager, Office 9 from Irene 

Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Office 9; Third 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the Final 

Results, dated September 8, 2009. 

Additionally, we have made companyspecific changes since the Preliminary 

Results to the antidumping duty margin 

calculations for all three mandatory 

respondents. For further details on these 

company-specific changes, see Issues 

and Decision Memo at Comments 12, 

13, 14 and 15, and company specific 

analysis memoranda. 

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, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,6

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 (HTS 

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 (HTS 

subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product: (1) That 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) 

with the entire surface of the shrimp 

flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with 

the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp 

content of the end product constituting 

between four and 10 percent of the 

product’s total weight after being 

dusted, but prior to being frozen; and (5) 

that is subjected to IQF freezing 

immediately after application of the 

dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a 

shrimp-based product that, when dusted 

in accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par-fried. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47193 

7 In determining that Bangladesh was a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, we looked to 

information on the record that supports 

Bangladesh’s fulfillment of this criterion. See Issues 

and Decision Memo at Comment 2. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Surrogate Country 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

determined that, pursuant to section 

773(c)(4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘Act’’), Bangladesh is an 

appropriate surrogate country because it 

is at a similar level of economic 

development to Vietnam, is a significant 

producer of comparable merchandise, 

and has reliable, publicly available data 

representing a broad-market average for 

surrogate valuation purposes. See 

Preliminary Results at 10015. 

Subsequently, we analyzed comments 

from interested parties regarding our 

preliminary surrogate country selection 

and have determined that, for the final 

results, we will continue to use 

Bangladesh as the primary surrogate 

country. Specifically, first, we noted 

that the Office of Policy provided a list 

of potential surrogate countries and 

considered them ‘‘equally comparable 

in terms of economic development.’’ 

See, e.g., Preliminary Results at 10014. 

Second, in relying on the most recently 

available 2005 data from the FishStat 

Database (‘‘FishStat’’) of the Food and 

Agricultural Organization (‘‘FAO’’) of 

the United Nations, we determined that 

Indonesia, India and Bangladesh were 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise whereas Sri Lanka and 

Pakistan were not significant producers 

of comparable merchandise.7 Thus, we 

no longer consider Sri Lanka and 

Pakistan to be appropriate surrogate 

country choices. Consequently, the 

remaining potential surrogate countries 

subject to further consideration were 

Indonesia, India, and Bangladesh. 

Finally, we considered the available 

data from Indonesia, India, and 

Bangladesh with which to value raw 

shrimp, the main input for subject 

merchandise production. The 

Department’s selection of Bangladesh as 

the primary surrogate country is based 

on our determination that the available 

data that would fulfill a wider range of 

our established surrogate value selection 

criteria, such as the availability of 

publicly-available count-size specific 

data representing a broad-market 

average. The record shows that, 

compared with the Bangladeshi data, 

neither the Indian data not the 

Indonesian data satisfied the breadth of 

surrogate value criteria for raw shrimp. 

Therefore, based on the evidence on the 

record, we determine that Bangladesh 

continues to be the most appropriate 

surrogate country in this review. As 

Petitioner and Domestic Processors have 

not provided compelling evidence to the 

contrary, we will continue to use 

Bangladesh as the primary surrogate 

country for the final results of this 

administrative review. For a detailed 

analysis of our determination, see Issues 

and Decisions Memo at Comment 2. 

Request for Revocation, In Part 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

determined not to revoke the 

antidumping duty order with respect to 

Fish One. See Preliminary Results at 

10011. We have not, for the final results, 

changed our determination. For further 

discussion, see Issues and Decision 

Memo at Comment 16. 

Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides 

that, if an interested party: (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested, subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified; the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information 

requested in the requested form and 

manner, together with a full explanation 

and suggested alternative form in which 

such party is able to submit the 

information,’’ the Department may 

modify the requirements to avoid 

imposing an unreasonable burden on 

that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses, 

as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the Department ‘‘finds that 

an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information from the administering 

authority * * *, the administering 

authority * * *, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ 

Minh Phu Group 

For the final results, in accordance 

with sections 773(c)(3)(B) and 776(a)(1) 

of the Act, we have determined that the 

use of facts available (‘‘FA’’) is required 

for Minh Phu Group’s domestic cold 

storage warehousing expense for 

reported sales. As stated in the 

Preliminary Results, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, we must 

deduct movement expenses from the 

U.S. price. See Preliminary Results at 

10015. Because domestic cold storage 

expenses are considered part of 

movement expenses within the margin 

calculation, an accurate calculation of 

the average warehousing period is 

required. To properly calculate cold 

storage warehousing as part of 

movement expenses, we need to apply 

the cold storage surrogate value to a 

quantifiable period of time for the 

reported sales. However, during the 

course of the review, the Department 

did not request that Minh Phu Group 

report the number of days that subject 

merchandise was held in unaffiliated 

cold storage warehousing prior to 

exportation. Accordingly, because the 

record does not contain the average 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47194 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

8See Steel Wire Garment Hangers from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 47587 (August 

14, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2 (where we applied 

facts available to a material input that the 

Department had not requested the respondent 

report during the proceeding). 

9These other separate rate companies are: 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., Bac Lieu Fisheries 

Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’), Ca Mau Seafood 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’), 

Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX’’), Cantho 

Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export 

Enterprise (Cafatex), Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing 

Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’), Can 

Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import 

Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’), Coastal Fisheries 

Development Corporation (‘‘COFIDEC’’), Cuulong 

Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’), Danang 

Seaproducts Import Export Corporation 

(‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) and affiliate Tho Quang 

Seafood Processing & Export Company, Grobest & 

I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Investment 

Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’), 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing JointStock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’), Minh Hai 

Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company 

(‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’), Ngoc Sinh Private 

Enterprise, Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’), Nha Trang 

Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’), Phu 

Cuong Seafood Processing & Import-Export Co., 

Ltd., Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘FIMEX’’), Soc Trang Aquatic Products and 

General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’), 

Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation 

(and its affiliates), UTXI Aquatic Products 

Processing Company (‘‘UTXI’’), Viet Foods Co., 

Ltd., Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. a/k/a Vietnam Fish 

One Co., Ltd. (Fish One), Vinh Loi Import Export 

Company (‘‘VIMEX’’). 

10Minh Hai Jostoco never filed a changed 

circumstance review request. 

period of time that subject merchandise 

was held in cold storage warehousing 

during the POR, the Department must 

use FA in accordance with section 

776(a)(1) of the Act.8

In determining the most appropriate 

and reliable information to use as FA, 

the Department reviewed Petitioner’s 

suggested proxy provided in its case 

brief dated April 10, 2009, which is 

calculated from information contained 

within a set of shipping documents for 

one EP sale during the POR. 

Additionally, on June 22, 2009, the 

Department placed on the record cold 

storage warehousing data reported by 

Minh Phu Group in the second 

administrative review, for the period 

February 1, 2006, through January 31, 

2007. See Memorandum to the File from 

Irene Gorelik, Analyst, re; Domestic 

Warehousing Data for Minh Phu Group, 

dated June 22, 2009 at Attachment I. 

The Department stated its intent to use 

that information for the final results of 

this review and invited interested 

parties to comment on this data. No 

interested parties submitted comments 

regarding the data. 

As FA, for the final results of this 

review, we are relying on Minh Phu 

Group’s reported cold storage 

warehousing data from the preceding 

administrative review, which we have 

placed on the record of this review, for 

the average number of days that subject 

merchandise was held in storage prior 

to exportation. See id. We find that the 

average number of days that Minh Phu 

Group reported in the preceding review 

is more accurate than Petitioner’s 

suggested proxy, as it was calculated 

using a wider range of data points from 

the company’s records, rather than an 

inferred period of time gathered from 

one set of shipping documents. For 

further details regarding the 

Department’s calculation of domestic 

warehousing, see Issues and Decision 

Memo at Comment 12 and 

Memorandum to the File through 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Irene Gorelik, Senior 

Analyst, Office 9; Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Analysis for the Final Results 

of Minh Phu Group dated September 8, 

2009. 

Separate Rates 

In the Preliminary Results, we 

determined that the mandatory 

respondents, Camimex, Minh Phu 

Group and Phuong Nam, as well as 

certain SR Respondents,9 met the 

criteria for separate-rate status. We have 

not received any information since the 

issuance of the Preliminary Results that 

provides a basis for reconsideration of 

these determinations. Therefore, the 

Department continues to find that these 

entities meet the criteria for a separate 

rate. 

However, in the Preliminary Results, 

we also noted that certain entities 

requesting separate rate status for new 

trade names or additional trade names 

that had not been previously granted 

separate rate status required further 

analysis. Specifically, we stated that 

‘‘separate-rate certifications filed by 

seven exporters showed that these seven 

companies claimed to have undergone 

changes in name, legal and/or corporate 

structure during the POR.’’ See 

Preliminary Results at 10012. We further 

stated that ‘‘a separate-rate certification 

is not the proper vehicle by which a 

company that has undergone name or 

other corporate changes should request 

a separate rate.’’ See id. Accordingly, we 

notified Cadovimex, CATACO, 

Stapimex, UTXI, Bac Lieu, Minh Hai 

Jostoco, and Thuan Phuoc that a 

changed circumstance review would be 

required for the Department to analyze 

any claims of successor-in-interest by 

these companies. However, the 

Department preliminarily granted 

separate rate status to these seven 

companies prior to any name or other 

corporate change. See id. 

Since the Preliminary Results, the 

Department has conducted changed 

circumstance reviews for six of the 

above-mentioned seven entities.10 The 

Department published its preliminary 

results of changed circumstance 

reviews, finding that, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), 

Cadovimex is succeeded by Cadovimex 

Seafood Import-Export and Processing 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘Cadovimex 

Vietnam’’), Stapimex is succeeded by 

Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘STAPIMEX JSC’’), Bac Lieu is 

succeeded by Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint 

Stock Company (‘‘Bac Lieu JSC’’), 

Thuan Phuoc is succeeded by Thuan 

Phuoc Seafoods and Trading 

Corporation (‘‘Thuan Phuoc JSC’’), and 

UTXI is succeeded by UTXI Aquatic 

Products Processing Corporation (‘‘UTXI 

Corp.’’) See Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From Vietnam: Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty Changed 

Circumstances Reviews, 74 FR 31698 

(July 2, 2009). However, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(i), the 

Department also preliminarily 

determined that CAFISH is not the 

successor-in-interest to CATACO. See 

id. The Department subsequently 

published the final results of changed 

circumstance reviews for the above six 

entities, with no changes to its 

preliminary determinations. See Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From Vietnam: 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Changed Circumstances Reviews, 

74 FR 42050 (August 20, 2009) (‘‘CCR 

Final’’). 

Following the Department’s 

determinations in the CCR Final, the 

Department has listed, in the ‘‘Final 

Results of the Review’’ section below, 

the names of the successor companies 

and their respective qualifying trade 

names that are assuming the separate 

rate of the former entity effective from 

August 20, 2009. See CCR Final. For 

those entities, including CATACO, for 

which we did not find a successorship 

exists, the separate rate in this review 

will be granted only to the former entity 

in addition to its qualifying trade 

names, as noted below. For a detailed 

discussion of the trade names not 

granted separate-rate status, see Issues 

and Decision Memo at Comment 17. 

Rate for Non-Selected Companies 

In the Preliminary Results, we stated 

that the Department employed a limited 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47195 

11See Preliminary Results at 10011; see also 

footnote 19 below. 

examination methodology, as it did not 

have the resources to examine all 

companies for which a review request 

was made and selected three exporters, 

Minh Phu Group, Camimex, and 

Phuong Nam as mandatory respondents 

in this review. See Preliminary Results 

at 10010. Additionally, 25 additional 

companies (listed in footnote 10 above) 

submitted timely information as 

requested by the Department and 

remained subject to review as 

cooperative separate rate respondents. 

The Department assigned a preliminary 

rate to the remaining 25 cooperative 

separate rate respondents not selected 

for individual examination. 

In the Preliminary Results, we noted 

that the statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not directly address the 

establishment of a rate to be applied to 

companies not selected for individual 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

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

Preliminary Results. We further 

explained that the Department’s practice 

in this regard, in cases involving limited 

selection based on exporters accounting 

for the largest volumes of trade, has 

been to weight-average the rates for the 

selected companies excluding zero and 

de minimis rates and rates based 

entirely on FA. See Preliminary Results 

at 10014. However, due to changes in 

certain surrogate values and the 

correction of certain clerical errors for 

Minh Phu Group, Camimex, and 

Phuong Nam from the Preliminary 

Results, the Department has, for the 

final results, calculated all de minimis 

dumping margins for the mandatory 

respondents. 

Because the Act does not address that 

rate to be applied to companies not 

selected for individual examination, we 

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

Act for guidance. 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 FA. Section 

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

that, where all margins are zero rates, de 

minimis rates, or rates based entirely on 

FA, we may use ‘‘any reasonable 

method’’ for assigning the rate to nonselected respondents. We note that in 

the preceding administrative review, the 

Department looked to other reasonable 

means to assign separate-rate margins to 

non-reviewed companies because we 

calculated zero rates, de minimis rates, 

or rates based entirely on FA for the 

mandatory respondents. 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 (September 9, 

2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 6 

(‘‘Vietnam Shrimp AR2 Final’’). Because 

the Department is faced with similar 

circumstances in these final results as in 

the preceding administrative review, we 

must, again, look to other reasonable 

means to assign separate rate margins to 

non-reviewed companies eligible for a 

separate rate in this review. We find that 

a reasonable method is to assign to nonreviewed companies in this review the 

most recent rate calculated for the nonselected companies in question, unless 

we calculated in a more recent segment 

a rate for any company that was not 

zero, de minimis, or based entirely on 

FA. Pursuant to this method, we are 

assigning the rate of 4.57 percent, the 

most recent positive rate (from the lessthan-fair-value (‘‘LTFV’’) investigation) 

calculated for cooperative separate rate 

respondents, to those separate rate 

respondents in the instant review with 

no calculated margin that is concurrent 

with or more recent than this rate. For 

those separate rate respondents that 

received a calculated rate in a prior 

segment, concurrent with or more recent 

than the 4.57 percent rate, we are 

assigning that calculated rate as the 

company’s separate rate in this review. 

Specifically, for Fish-One and Grobest, 

we are assigning the rates most recently 

calculated for both companies (zero) as 

their separate rate in the instant review 

because these rates are more recent than 

the separate rate calculated in the LTFV 

and are based on the companies’ own 

data. Additionally, for Minh Hai JointStock Seafoods Processing Company 

(‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’), we are also 

assigning, as a separate rate, the most 

recent calculated rate of 4.30 percent, 

from the LTFV, which was based on the 

company’s own data. For all other 

separate rate respondents in the instant 

review, the separate rate is 4.57 percent. 

For additional details, see Issues and 

Decision Memo at Comment 16. This is 

the same methodology we applied in the 

final results of the prior review. See 

Vietnam Shrimp AR2 Final. 

Vietnam-Wide Entity 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department determined that 78 

companies which did not demonstrate 

eligibility for a separate rate are 

properly considered part of the 

Vietnam-Wide entity.11 Since the 

Preliminary Results, no parties 

commented or provided evidence 

contrary to our preliminary 

determination with respect to these 78 

companies. Therefore, for the final 

results, we will continue to assign the 

entity’s current rate of 25.76 percent, the 

only rate ever determined for the 

Vietnam-wide entity in this proceeding. 

Because we are rescinding this review 

with respect to CP Vietnam and Kim 

Anh as noted above, and we no longer 

find these companies to be part of the 

Vietnam-wide entity as we did in the 

Preliminary Results, any suspended 

entries for CP Vietnam and Kim Anh 

will be liquidated at the rate in effect on 

the date of entry. 

Final Results of the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following final dumping margins 

exist for the period February 1, 2007, 

through January 31, 2008: 

CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Minh Phu Group: 

Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Minh Phat Seafood aka Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and 

affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) aka Minh Phu Seafood Corp. aka 

Minh Phu Seafood Corporation aka Minh Qui Seafood aka Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd.

0.43 (de minimis) 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’), aka Camimex, aka Camau Seafood 

Factory No. 4, aka Camau Seafood Factory No. 5.

0.08 (de minimis) 

Phuong Nam Co. Ltd., aka Phuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd. aka Western Seafood ...................................................... 0.21 (de minimis) 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
47196 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 

12See CCR Final; see also Issues and Decision 

Memo at Comment 17. 

13See CCR Final; see also Issues and Decision 

Memo at Comment 17. 

14Because we have determined that Cantho 

Import-Export Seafood Joint Stock Company, also 

known as Caseamex is not a successor-in-interest to 

Cataco, we have not extended Cataco’s separate rate 

status to Caseamex or to Can Tho Import Export 

Fishery Limited Company (‘‘CAFISH’’). See CCR 

Final; see also Issues and Decision Memo at 

Comment 17. 

CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM—Continued 

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-average margin 

(percent) 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd ........................................................................................................................................ 4.57 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company 12 ................................................................................................................... 4.57 

Cadovimex-Vietnam, aka Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘CadovimexVietnam’’).134.57 

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘Cafatex Corp.’’) aka Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export 

Enterprise (Cafatex), aka Cafatex, aka Cafatex Vietnam, aka Xi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat Khau Can 

Tho, aka Cas, aka Cas Branch, aka Cafatex Saigon, aka Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka Cafatex 

Corporation, aka Taydo Seafood Enterprise.

4.57 

Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) aka Camranh Seafoods .................... 4.57% 

Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) aka Can Tho Agricultural Products aka CATACO, aka Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Imex Company.144.57 

Coastal Fishery Development aka Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) aka Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec).4.57 

Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro) aka 

Cuulong Seapro, aka Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’).

4.57 

Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) aka Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company, aka Seaprodex Danang, aka Tho Quang Seafood Processing And Export Company, aka Tho 

Quang, aka Tho Quang Co.

4.57 

Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation (‘‘Thuan Phuoc JSC’’).15 ................................................................. 4.57 

Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., aka Grobest & I–Mei Industry Vietnam, aka Grobest ........................ 0.00 (zero) 

Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’) .......................................................................................... 4.57 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, aka Minh Hai Jostoco, aka Minh Hai Export 

Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’), aka Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood 

Processing Joint-Stock Company, aka Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company, aka Minh 

Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Co., aka Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing JointStock Company Minh Hai Jostoco.16

4.57 

Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’) aka Sea Minh Hai, aka Minh Hai 

Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company.

4.30 

Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co), aka Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’) aka Seaprimexco Vietnam, aka Seaprimexco, aka Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company 

(Seaprimexco).

4.57 

Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise, aka Ngoc Sinh Seafoods, aka Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprise.4.57 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) .................................................................................. 4.57 

Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) ........................................................................................... 4.57 

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd ........................................................................................ 4.57 

Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’), aka Sao Ta Seafood Factory ...................................................... 4.57 

Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company 17 ................................................................................................................. 4.57 

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation 18 ........................................................................................................ 4.57 

Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Viet Foods’’) ............................................................................................................................... 4.57 

Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. aka Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (Fish One) ....................................................................... 0.00 (zero) 

Vinh Loi Import Export Company (‘‘Vimexco’’), aka Vinh Loi Import Export Company (‘‘VIMEX’’), aka VIMEXCO, 

aka VIMEX.

4.57 

Vietnam-Wide Rate 19 ..................................................................................................................................................... 25.76 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these final 

results to the parties within five days of 

the date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific (or customer) ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 15, 2009 / Notices 47197 

15See CCR Final; see also Issues and Decision 

Memo at Comment 17. 

16For the same reasons discussed in Preliminary 

Results, we have not extended Minh Hai Jostoco’s 

separate-rate status to: Kien Cuong Seafood 

Processing Import Export Joint-Stock Company 

(‘‘Kien Cuong’’) and Viet Cuong Seafood Processing 

Import Export Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Viet Cuong’’). 

See Preliminary Results at footnote 24. 

17See CCR Final; see also Issues and Decision 

Memo at Comment 17. 

18See CCR Final; see also Issues and Decision 

Memo at Comment 17. 

19The Vietnam-wide entity includes: AAAS 

Logistics; Agrimex; Amerasian Shipping Logistics 

Corp.; American Container Line; An Giang Fisheries 

Import and Export Joint Stock Company (Agifish); 

An Xuyen; Angiang Agricultural; Technology 

Service Company; Aquatic Products Trading 

Company; Bentre Aquaproduct Imports & Exports; 

Bentre Forestry and Aquaproduct Import-Export 

Company (‘‘FAQUIMEX’’); Bentre Frozen 

Aquaproduct Exports; Bentre Seafood Joint Stock; 

Beseaco, Binh Dinh Fishery Joint Stock; Cantho 

Import-Export Seafood Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘Caseamex’’); Can Tho Import Export Fishery 

Limited Company (‘‘CAFISH’’); Ca Mau 

Seaproducts Exploitation and Service Corporation 

(‘‘SES’’); Camau Seafood Fty; Can Tho Seafood 

Exports; Cautre Enterprises; Chun Cheng Da Nang 

Co., Ltd.; Co Hieu; Cong Ty Do Hop Viet Cuong; 

Dao Van Manh; Dong Phuc Huynh; Dragon Waves 

Frozen Food Fty.; Duyen Hai Bac Lieu Company 

(‘‘T.K. Co.’’); Duyen Hai Foodstuffs Processing 

Factory (‘‘COSEAFEX’’); General Imports & Exports; 

Hacota; Hai Ha Private Enterprise; Hai Thuan 

Export Seaproduct Processing Co., Ltd. ; Hai Viet; 

Hai Viet Corporation (‘‘HAVICO’’); Hanoi 

Seaproducts Import Export Corporation 

(‘‘Seaprodex Hanoi’’); Seaprodex Hanoi; Hatrang 

Frozen Seaproduct Fty; Hoa Nam Marine 

Agricultural; Hoan An Fishery; Hoan Vu Marine 

Product Co., Ltd.; Hua Heong Food Ind Vietnam; 

Khanh Loi Trading; Kien Gang Sea Products 

Import—Export Company (Kisimex); Kien Gang 

Seaproduct Import and Export Company 

(‘‘KISIMEX’’); Konoike Vinatrans Logistics; Lamson 

Import-Export Foodstuffs Corporation; Long An 

Food Processing Export Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘LAFOOCO’’); Lucky Shing; Nam Hai; Nha Trang 

Company Limited; Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd.; 

Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd.; Phat Loc 

Seafood; Phung Hung Private Business; Saigon 

Orchide; Sea Product; Sea Products Imports & 

Exports; Seafood Company Zone II (‘‘Thusaco2’’); 

Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company No.9 

(previously Seafood Processing Imports Exports); 

Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory; Seaprodex; 

Seaprodex Quang Tri; Sonacos; Song Huong ASC 

Import-Export Company Ltd.; Song Huong ASC 

Joint Stock Company; Special Aquatic Products 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘Seaspimex’’); SSC; T & T 

Co., Ltd.; Tacvan Frozen Seafoods Processing 

Export Company; Thami Shipping & Airfreight; 

Thang Long; Thanh Long; Thanh Doan Seaproducts 

Import; Thien Ma Seafood; Tourism Material and 

Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City 

Branch); Truc An Company; Trung Duc Fisheries 

Private Enterprise; V N Seafoods; Vien Thang 

Private Enterprise; Viet Nhan Company; Vietfracht 

Can Tho; Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie 

Co.; Vietnam Northern Viking Technology Co. Ltd.; 

Vietnam Tomec Co., Ltd.; Vilfood Co.; and Vita. 

by this review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these 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, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in these final 

results of review (except, if the rate is 

zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, a zero cash deposit rate will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed 

Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese 

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 Vietnamese exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the 

Vietnamese-wide rate of 25.76 percent; 

and (4) for all non-Vietnamese exporters 

of subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

Vietnamese exporters that supplied that 

non-Vietnamese exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

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 the review period. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.402(f)(3), failure to comply 

with this requirement could result in 

the Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

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 as explained in 

the administrative protective order 

itself. 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 the terms of an 

APO is a sanctionable violation. 

This notice of final results of this 

administrative review is issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, 19 CFR 

351.213, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: September 8, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Respondent Selection 

Methodology 

Comment 2: Surrogate Country 

Comment 3: Treatment of Sales with 

Negative Margins 

Surrogate Values 

Comment 4: Wage Rate Calculation 

Comment 5: Bangladeshi Inflator Data 

Comment 6: Raw Shrimp 

A. Surrogate Value Source 

B. Period of NACA Data Used 

C. Count Size Classifications 

Comment 7: Other Surrogate Values 

A. By-Products 

B. Master Cartons 

C. Inner Boxes 

D. Plastic Trays/Rings 

E. Sticker/Label 

F. Cold Storage 

Surrogate Financial Ratios 

Comment 8: Use of Gemini Foods Inc. 

Comment 9: Treatment of Depreciation 

Expenses 

Comment 10: Treatment of Labor 

Expenses 

Company-Specific Issues 

Comment 11: Application of Adverse 

Facts Available to Minh Phu 

Group’s U.S. Warehousing 

Expenses 

Comment 12: Application of Facts 

Available to Minh Phu Group’s 

Domestic Warehousing Expenses 

Comment 13: Clerical Errors Alleged for 

Minh Phu Group 

A. Treatment of Minh Phu Group’s 

Sample Sales 

B. Treatment of Minh Phu Group’s 

Returned Merchandise 

C. Minh Phu Group’s Import-Specific 

Assessment 

Comment 14: Clerical Errors Alleged for 

Camimex 

Comment 15: Clerical Errors Alleged for 

Phuong Nam 

Comment 16: Treatment of Fish One 

Revocation Request 

Comment 17: Separate-Rate Status of 

Certain SR Respondents 

Comment 18: Treatment of C.P. Vietnam 

Livestock Co., Ltd. 

Comment 19: Treatment of Kim Anh 

Co., Ltd. 

[FR Doc. E9–22188 Filed 9–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES