Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices 25305

1See Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews:

Brass Sheet and Strip from Brazil, France, and

Korea, 64 FR 48351 (September 3, 1999); Final

Results of Full Sunset Review: Brass Sheet and

Strip from the Netherlands, 65 FR 735 (January 6,

2000); and Final Results of Expedited Sunset

Review: Brass Sheet and Strip from Sweden, 64 FR

49444 (September 13, 1999).

Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) and 751

(c)(6) of the Act, the Department intends

to initiate the next five-year review of

these orders not later than March 2005.

Dated: April 25, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–10802 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–580–603; A–421–701; A–401–601]

Revocation of Antidumping Duty

Orders: Brass Sheet and Strip From

the Republic of Korea, the

Netherlands, and Sweden

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of revocation of

antidumping duty orders: Brass sheet

and strip from the Republic of Korea,

the Netherlands, and Sweden.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 751(c) of

the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (‘‘the

Act’’), the United States International

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’)

determined that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet

and strip from the Republic of Korea

(‘‘Korea’’), the Netherlands, and Sweden

are not likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of material injury to an

industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time (65 FR

20832 (April 18, 2000)). Therefore,

pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act

and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1), the

Department of Commerce (‘‘the

Department’’) is revoking the

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet

and strip from Korea, the Netherlands,

and Sweden. Pursuant to section

751(c)(6)(A)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.222(i)(2), the effective date of

revocation is January 1, 2000.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eun

W. Cho or Carole Showers, Office of

Policy for Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Ave., NW,

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202)

482–1698 or (202) 482–3217,

respectively.

On February 1, 1999, the Department

initiated, and the Commission

instituted, sunset reviews (64 FR 4840

and 64 FR 4892, respectively) of the

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet

and strip from Korea, the Netherlands,

and Sweden, pursuant to section 751(c)

of the Act. As a result of the reviews, the

Department found that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders would be

likely to lead to continuation or

recurrence of dumping and notified the

Commission of the magnitude of the

margins likely to prevail were the

antidumping orders revoked.1

On April 18, 2000, the Commission

determined, pursuant to section 751(c)

of the Act, that revocation of the

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet

and strip from Korea, the Netherlands,

and Sweden would not likely lead to

continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United

States within a reasonably foreseeable

time. (see, Brass Sheet and Strip from

Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, and

Sweden, 65 FR 20832 (April 18, 2000)

and USITC Publication 3290,

Investigations Nos. 701–TA–269 & 270

(Review), and 731–TA–311–317 and

379–380 (Review) (April 2000)).

Scope

Imports covered by this order are

brass sheet and strip, other than leaded

and tin brass sheet and strip, from

Korea, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

The chemical composition of the

products under order is currently

defined in the Copper Development

Association (‘‘CDA’’) 200 Series or the

Unified Numbering System (‘‘UNS’’)

C20000 series. This order does not cover

products the chemical composition of

which are defined by other CDA or UNS

series. The physical dimensions of the

products covered by this order are brass

sheet and strip of solid rectangular cross

section over 0.006 inch (0.15 millimeter)

through 0.188 inch (4.8 millimeters) in

gauge, regardless of width. Coiled,

wound-on-reels (traverse-wound), and

cut-to-length products are included. The

merchandise subject to this order is

currently classifiable under item

numbers 7409.21.00.50, 7409.21.00.75,

7409.21.00.90, 7409.29.00.50,

7409.29.00.75, and 7409.29.0090 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the

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

HTSUS subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

subject to this order is dispositive.

Determination

As a result of the determination by the

Commission that revocation of these

antidumping duty orders is not likely to

lead to continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the

United States, the Department, pursuant

to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19

CFR 351.222(i)(1), is revoking the

antidumping duty orders on brass sheet

and strip from Korea, the Netherlands,

and Sweden. Pursuant to section

751(c)(6)(A)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR

351.222(i)(2)(ii), this revocation is

effective January 1, 2000.

The Department will instruct the U.S.

Customs Service to discontinue the

suspension of liquidation and collection

of cash deposits rate on entries of the

subject merchandise entered or

withdrawn from warehouse on or after

January 1, 2000 (the effective date). The

Department will complete any pending

administrative reviews of these orders

and will conduct administrative reviews

of subject merchandise entered prior to

the effective date of revocation in

response to appropriately filed requests

for review.

Dated: April 25, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–10803 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–588–853]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Circular

Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow

Products From Japan

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charles Riggle at (202) 482–0650 or

Constance Handley at (202) 482–0631,

Import Administration, Room 1870,

International Trade Administration,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20230.

The Applicable Statute and Regulations

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

(URAA). In addition, unless otherwise

25306 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices

1On March 28, 2000, the petitioners requested

that the scope of the investigation be amended to

exclude certain products. This change is reflected

in the current scope.

indicated, all citations to Department of

Commerce (Department) regulations

refer to the regulations codified at 19

CFR part 351 (April 1999).

Preliminary Determination

We preliminarily determine that

circular seamless stainless steel hollow

products (SSHP) from Japan are being

sold, or are likely to be sold, in the

United States at less than fair value

(LTFV), as provided in section 733 of

the Act. The estimated margins of sales

at LTFV are shown in the Suspension of

Liquidation section of this notice.

Case History

On October 26, 1999, the Department

received a petition on SSHP from Japan

filed in proper form by Altx, Inc.,

American Extruded Products, PMAC

Ltd, DMV Stainless USA, Inc., Salem

Tube Inc., Sandvik Steel Co.,

International Extruded Products LLC

and the United Steel Workers of

America, AFL–CIO/CLC. On November

9, 1999, Pennsylvania Extruded

Company (Pexco) joined as a copetitioner in the case.

This investigation was initiated on

November 15, 1999. See Initiation of

Antidumping Duty Investigation:

Circular Seamless Stainless Steel

Hollow Products from Japan (Initiation

Notice), 64 FR 63285 (November 19,

1999). Since the initiation of the

investigation, the following events have

occurred:

On December 22, 1999, the

Department selected the following

companies as mandatory respondents in

the investigation: Sanyo Special Tube

Company Ltd. (Sanyo) and Sumitomo

Metal Industries Ltd. (SMI). See

Selection of Respondents, below. On

December 29, 1999, the Department

issued the antidumping questionnaires

to each of the selected respondents. On

February 28, March 3, March 8, and

March 15, 2000, the Department issued

supplemental questionnaires to SMI.

SMI responded to the section A

supplemental questionnaire on March 6,

2000, however, it did not respond to any

of the other supplemental

questionnaires.

On December 10, 1999, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) preliminarily determined that

there is a reasonable indication that

imports of the products subject to this

antidumping investigation are

materially injuring the U.S. industry.

See Circular Seamless Stainless Steel

Hollow Products from Japan, 64 FR

71496 (December 21, 1999).

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

October 1, 1998, through September 30,

1999. This period corresponds to the

four most recent fiscal quarters prior to

the month of the filing of the petition

(i.e., October 1999).

Scope of Investigation 1

The scope of this investigation covers

seamless stainless hollow products,

including pipes, tubes, redraw hollows,

and hollow bars, of circular cross

section, containing 10.5 percent or more

by weight chromium, regardless of

production process, outside diameter,

wall thickness, length, industry

specification (domestic, foreign or

proprietary), grade or intended use.

Common specifications for the subject

seamless stainless steel hollow products

include, but are not limited to, ASTM–

A–213, ASTM–A–268, ASTM–A–269,

ASTM–A–270, ASTM–A–271, ASTM–

A–312, ASTM–A–376, ASTM–A–498,

ASTM–A–511, ASTM–A–632, ASTM–

A–731, ASTM–A–771, ASTM–A–789,

ASTM–A–790, ASTM–A–826 and their

proprietary or foreign equivalents.

The merchandise covered by this

petition is found in the Harmonized

Tariff Schedule of the United States

(HTSUS) subheadings 7304.10.50.20,

7304.10.50.50, 7304.10.50.80,

7304.41.30.05,

7304.41.30.15,7304.41.30.45,

7304.41.60.05, 7304.41.60.15,

7304.41.60.45, 7304.49.00.05,

7304.49.00.15, 7304.49.00.45,

7304.49.00.60. Although HTSUS

subheadings are provided for

convenience and customs purposes, the

written description of the merchandise

is dispositive.

Excluded from the scope of the

investigation are finished oil country

tubular goods certified to American

Petroleum Institute (API) standard 5CT

or 5D or to a proprietary OCTG

specification if such OCTG products are

(1) not certified, marked or otherwise

warranted or qualified for use as a nonOCTG product; (2) produced to a

common OCTG casing, tubing or drill

pipe size as found in the standard size

tables of API specifications 5CT and 5D,

or produced to standard VIT sizes for

deep-water temperature-controlled

tubing; (3) rated for a minimum yield

strength of not less than 85,000 psi and

a minimum tensile strength of not less

than 100,000 psi, as noted on the mill

certificate or other relevant sales

documentation; (4) continuously

stenciled with the appropriate API and/

or proprietary OCTG specification, size

(e.g., outside diameter and weight),

minimum yield and tensile strength,

and the phrase ‘‘OCTG,’’ ‘‘oil country

tubular goods’’ or a similar phrase, with

such information also written on the

entry documents; (5) not marked or

otherwise certified as meeting a

specification other than an API or

proprietary OCTG specification whether

or not also marked, warranted or

certified to an OCTG specification; and

(6) not used in any application other

than a down-hole, OCTG application.

Any OCTG products marked, certified

or otherwise warranted for non-OCTG

use, or actually used in a non-OCTG

application, are within the scope of this

investigation.

Also excluded from the scope of this

investigation is OCTG coupling stock

that (1) is entered within the same entry

as matching (complimentary) sizes and

matching grades of exempted OCTG, or

(2) is entered with documentation

linking the entered OCTG coupling

stock products to another entry of

matching sizes and grades of OCTG, and

(3) is actually used in the production of

OCTG couplings or other OCTG

accessories. All coupling stock that does

not have such ‘‘Mother-Child

Traceability’’ remains within the scope

of the investigation, and coupling stock

that is traceable remains within the

scope if used in an application other

than the production of OCTG couplings

or accessories.

Line pipe marked, produced,

warranted, or certified only to API or

proprietary line pipe specifications and

used in a pipeline application is

excluded from the scope of the

investigation. Line pipe products are

included in the scope if (1) marked,

produced, warranted, or certified to one

of the covered seamless stainless steel

hollow products specifications listed

above (or their proprietary or foreign

equivalents), whether or not also

certified to an API, proprietary, or

foreign line pipe specification, or (2) are

used in an application other than in an

oil or gas pipeline.

Also excluded are hollow drill bars

and rods, classifiable under item

number 7228.80 of the HTSUS.

With regard to the excluded OCTG

products, OCTG coupling stock, and

line pipe used in oil or gas pipeline

applications, the Department will not

instruct Customs to require end-use

certification until such time as

petitioner or other interested parties

provide a reasonable basis to believe or

suspect that imports of these products

are not being used for their intended

purpose of OCTG or oil or gas line pipe

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices 25307

is occurring. If such information is

provided, we will require end-use

certification only for the product(s) (or

specification(s)) for which the evidence

demonstrates such new use. For

example, if, based on evidence provided

by petitioner, the Department finds a

reasonable basis to believe or suspect

that seamless pipe produced to a

proprietary specification is being used

in a non-OCTG application, we will

require end-use certifications for

imports of that specification. Normally

we will require only the importer of

record to certify to the end use of the

imported merchandise. If it later proves

necessary for adequate implementation,

we may also require producers who

export such products to the United

States to provide such certification on

invoices accompanying shipments to

the United States.

Selection of Respondents

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Act directs

the Department to calculate individual

dumping margins for each known

exporter and producer of the subject

merchandise. However, section

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the

Department discretion, when faced with

a large number of exporters/producers,

to limit its examination to a reasonable

number of such companies if it is not

practicable to examine all companies.

Where it is not practicable to examine

all known producers/exporters of

subject merchandise, this provision

permits the Department to investigate

either: (1) a sample of exporters,

producers, or types of products that is

statistically valid based on the

information available at the time of

selection, or (2) exporters and producers

accounting for the largest volume of the

subject merchandise that can be

reasonably examined.

Upon consideration of the resources

available to the Department, we

determined that it was not practicable to

examine all known producers/exporters

of the subject merchandise. Instead,

because there were numerous

producers/exporters of the subject

merchandise during the POI, we

selected as mandatory respondents the

two with the greatest export volume,

Sanyo and SMI. Together, they

accounted for more than 50 percent of

all known exports of the subject

merchandise during the POI from Japan.

For a more detailed discussion of

respondent selection in this

investigation, see Respondent Selection

Memorandum, dated December 22,

1999.

Facts Available

Sanyo did not respond to the

Department’s questionnaire. 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. Because Sanyo failed to

respond to our questionnaire, pursuant

to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we

resorted to facts otherwise available to

determine the dumping margins for this

company.

SMI responded to sections A through

D of the Department’s questionnaire, but

did not respond to the Department’s

requests for information necessary to

correct the deficiencies in its responses.

For a detailed discussion of this issue,

see Memorandum from Constance

Handley to Holly Kuga, Re: Use of Facts

Available, dated April 13, 2000.

Because SMI did not fully respond to

our requests for information, without

which we are unable to perform an

analysis of its pricing practices or costs,

we preliminarily determine that the use

of facts available is appropriate, in

accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of

the Act.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that the Department may use an

inference adverse to the interests of a

party that has failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with the Department’s requests for

information. See also Statement of

Administrative Action accompanying

the URAA, H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at

870 (1994) (SAA). Failure by Sanyo to

respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire constitutes a

failure to act to the best of its ability to

comply with a request for information,

within the meaning of section 776 of the

Act. Because Sanyo failed to act to the

best of its ability to respond to the

Department’s request for information,

the Department has preliminarily

determined that, in selecting from

among the facts otherwise available, an

adverse inference is warranted for

Sanyo.

Likewise, SMI’s failure to respond to

the preponderance of the requests for

information, constitutes a failure to act

to the best of its ability. SMI did not

provide the requested information even

after being granted additional time

when it failed to make a timely

response. Therefore, the Department has

preliminarily determined that, in

selecting from among the facts

otherwise available, an adverse

inference is warranted for SMI.

Because we were unable to calculate

margins for the respondents, consistent

with Department practice, we assigned

to Sanyo and SMI the highest margin

from the proceeding, which is the

highest margin alleged in the petition.

See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary

Determinations of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled FlatRolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products

From Argentina, Japan and Thailand,

64 FR 60410, 60414 (November 5, 1999).

See Initiation Notice.

Section 776(b) states that an adverse

inference may include reliance on

information derived from the petition.

See also SAA at 829–831. Section 776(c)

of the Act provides that, when the

Department relies on secondary

information (such as the petition) in

using the facts otherwise available, it

must, to the extent practicable,

corroborate that information from

independent sources that are reasonably

at its disposal.

The SAA clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’

means that the Department will satisfy

itself that the secondary information to

be used has probative value (see SAA at

870). The SAA also states that

independent sources used to corroborate

such evidence may include, for

example, published price lists, official

import statistics and customs data, and

information obtained from interested

parties during the particular

investigation (see SAA at 870).

We reviewed the adequacy and

accuracy of the information in the

petition during our pre-initiation

analysis of the petition, to the extent

appropriate information was available

for this purpose. See Import

Administration AD Investigation

Initiation Checklist, dated November 15,

1999, for a discussion of the margin

calculations in the petition. In addition,

in order to determine the probative

value of the margins in the petition for

use as adverse facts available for

purposes of this determination, we

examined evidence supporting the

calculations in the petition. In

accordance with section 776(c) of the

Act, to the extent practicable, we

examined the key elements of the export

price (EP) and normal value (NV)

calculations on which the margins in

the petition were based.

Our review of the EP and NV

calculations indicated that the

information in the petition has

25308 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 84 / Monday, May 1, 2000 / Notices

probative value, as certain information

included in the margin calculations in

the petition is from public sources

concurrent, for the most part, with the

POI (e.g., international freight and

insurance, customs duty, interest rates).

However, with respect to certain other

data included in the margin calculations

of the petition (e.g., gross United States

and home market unit prices), neither

the respondents nor other interested

parties provided the Department with

further relevant information, and the

Department is aware of no other

independent source of information that

would enable it to further corroborate

the remaining components of the margin

calculation in the petition. The

implementing regulation for section 776

of the Act, codified at 19 CFR 351.308(c)

states, ‘‘[t]he fact that corroboration may

not be practicable in a given

circumstance will not prevent the

Secretary from applying an adverse

inference as appropriate and using the

secondary information in question.’’

Additionally, we note that the SAA at

870 specifically states that, where

‘‘corroboration may not be practicable in

a given circumstance,’’ the Department

may nevertheless apply an adverse

inference. Accordingly, we find, for

purposes of this preliminary

determination, that this information is

corroborated to the extent practicable.

All Others Rate

Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act

provides that, where the estimated

weighted-averaged dumping margins

established for all exporters and

producers individually investigated are

zero or de minimis or are determined

entirely under section 776 of the Act,

the Department may use any reasonable

method to establish the estimated allothers rate for exporters and producers

not individually investigated. Our

recent practice under these

circumstances has been to assign, as the

‘‘all others’’ rate, the simple average of

the margins in the petition. We have

done so in this case. See, e.g., Notice of

Final Determinations of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Certain Cold-Rolled

Flat-Rolled Carbon-Quality Steel

Products From Argentina, Japan and

Thailand, 65 FR 5520, 5528 (February 4,

2000).

Suspension of Liquidation

For entries of SSHP from Japan, we

are directing the U.S. Customs Service

to suspend liquidation of those entries

that are entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption on or after

the date of publication of this notice in

the Federal Register. We are also

instructing the Customs Service to

require a cash deposit or the posting of

a bond equal to the dumping margin, as

indicated in the chart below. These

instructions suspending liquidation will

remain in effect until further notice.

Manufacturer/exporter Margin

(percent)

Sanyo Special Tube ................. 156.81

Sumitomo Metal Industries ....... 156.81

All Others .................................. 62.14

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final antidumping

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine whether these imports

are materially injuring, or threaten

material injury to, the U.S. industry.

The deadline for that ITC determination

would be the later of 120 days after the

date of the preliminary determination or

45 days after the date of our final

determination.

Public Comment

Case briefs must be submitted no later

than 30 days after the publication of this

notice in the Federal Register. Rebuttal

briefs must be filed within five business

days after the deadline for submission of

case briefs. A list of authorities used, a

table of contents, and an executive

summary of issues should accompany

any briefs submitted to the Department.

Executive summaries should be limited

to five pages total, including footnotes.

Section 774 of the Act provides that

the Department will hold a hearing to

afford interested parties an opportunity

to comment on arguments raised in case

or rebuttal briefs, provided that such a

hearing is requested by any interested

party. If a request for a hearing is made

in an investigation, the hearing will

tentatively be held two days after the

deadline for submission of the rebuttal

briefs, at the U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

Interested parties who wish to request

a hearing, or to participate if one is

requested, must submit a written

request within 10 days of the

publication of this notice. Requests

should specify the number of

participants and provide a list of the

issues to be discussed. Oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the briefs. If this investigation

proceeds normally, we will make our

final determination no later than 75

days after the date of issuance of this

preliminary determination.

This determination is published

pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1)

of the Act.

Dated: April 21, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–10691 Filed 4–28–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–848]

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for

Preliminary Results of Administrative

Antidumping Review and New Shipper

Reviews: Freshwater Crawfish Tail

Meat From the People’s Republic of

China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 1, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jacqueline Arrowsmith or Maureen

Flannery, AD/CVD Enforcement, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–4052 or (202) 482–

3020, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to the current

regulations, codified at 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

Background

In accordance with 19 CFR

§ 351.213(b)(2), the Department received

requests from the following companies

that we conduct an administrative

review of their sales: Huaiyin Foreign

Trade Corp. (30); Huaiyin Foreign Trade

Corp. (5); Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp.;

Yancheng Baolong Biochemical

Products Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Rirong

Foodstuff Co., Ltd.; Lianyungang

Haiwang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.;

Yancheng Haiteng Aquatic Products and

Foods Co., Ltd.; and Yancheng Foreign

Trade Corp. Petitioner in the

proceeding, the Crawfish Processors

Alliance, also requested an

administrative review of the following: