U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4460 April 2014

Washington, DC 20436

Crawfish Tail Meat from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-752 (Third Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Irving A. Williamson, Chairman 

Dean A. Pinkert 

David S. Johanson 

Meredith M. Broadbent 

F. Scott Kieff

Robert B. Koopman

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Christian Bongiorno, Investigator 

Edward Petronzio, Investigator 

Alison Rozema, Commodity-Industry Analyst 

Carolyn Holmes, Statistical Assistant 

Darlene Smith, Statistical Assistant 

Cynthia Payne, Trade Information Specialist 

Nataline Viray-Fung, Attorney Advisor 

Elizabeth Haines, Supervisory Investigator 
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4460 April 2014

Crawfish Tail Meat from China

Investigation No. 731-TA-752 (Third Review)

Contents

Determination................................................................................................................................. 1

Views of the Commission ............................................................................................................... 3

Information obtained in the review .................................................................................... I-1

Introduction............................................................................................................................... I-1

Background............................................................................................................................ I-1

The original investigation ...................................................................................................... I-2

First five-year review............................................................................................................. I-2

Second five-year review ........................................................................................................ I-3

Commerce’s final results of expedited third five-year review.............................................. I-3

Commerce’s administrative reviews..................................................................................... I-3

Previous and related title VII investigations.......................................................................... I-4

The product............................................................................................................................... I-5

Commerce’s scope................................................................................................................. I-5

US tariff treatment ................................................................................................................ I-5

Domestic like product and domestic industry....................................................................... I-5

Physical characteristics and uses........................................................................................... I-6

Manufacturing process.......................................................................................................... I-7

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions ............................................... I-7

Channels of distribution ........................................................................................................ I-8

Pricing and related information ............................................................................................ I-8

The industry in the United States ............................................................................................. I-9

U.S. producers ....................................................................................................................... I-9

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data............................................................................. I-10

Related parties..................................................................................................................... I-11

U.S. imports and apparent U.S. consumption......................................................................... I-12

U.S. importers...................................................................................................................... I-12

U.S. imports......................................................................................................................... I-12

Ratio of imports to U.S. production .................................................................................... I-13

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares ................................................................. I-13

The industry in China............................................................................................................... I-15

Tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade .................................................................................... I-16

The global market ................................................................................................................... I-16

Note.—Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not 

be published and therefore has been deleted. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

i
 
1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731‐TA‐752 (Third Review)

CRAWFISH TAIL MEAT FROM CHINA

DETERMINATION

On the basis of the record1 developed in the subject five‐year review, the United States

International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. ' 1675(c)), that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

crawfish tail meat from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.2         

                                                                         

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on November 1, 2013 (78 F.R. 65709) and

determined on February 4, 2014 that it would conduct an expedited review (79 F.R. 10181,

February 24, 2014).   

 

 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission=s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR

' 207.2(f)).

 2 Commissioner Rhonda Schmidtlein was not a member of the Commission at the time of the vote.
 
3

Views of the Commission

Based on the record in this five‐year review, we determine under section 751(c) of the

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Tariff Act”), that revocation of the antidumping duty order

on crawfish tail meat from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material

injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.1  

I. Background

Original Investigation and Prior Reviews.  In September 1997, the Commission

determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason of imports of

crawfish tail meat from China that the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) had found

had been sold at less than fair value.2  Customs issued an antidumping duty order covering the

subject merchandise on September 15, 1997.3   

In July 2003, the Commission conducted its first five‐year review of the order (a full

review) and determined that revocation would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.4     

In November 2008, the Commission conducted its second five‐year review of the order  

(an expedited review) and determined again that revocation would likely lead to the

continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a

reasonably foreseeable time.5     

Current Review.  The Commission instituted this review on November 1, 2013.6  The

Commission received one substantive response to the notice of institution from the Crawfish

Processors Alliance (“CPA”), a trade association representing the majority of domestic

producers of crawfish tail meat.7  It did not receive a response from any respondent interested

party.  On February 4, 2014, the Commission found CPA’s response to the notice of institution

to be individually adequate, the domestic interested party group response to be adequate, and

                                                      

1 Commissioner Aranoff did not participate in this review.   Commissioner Schmidtlein assumed

office on April 28, 2014, after the vote in this investigation took place. 2 Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐752 (Final), USITC Pub. 3057 (August 1997)

(“Original Determination”).  The period of investigation (“POI”) was January 1, 1994 to December 31,

1997.

3 Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty

Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of China, 62 Fed. Reg. 48218 (Sep. 15,

1997). 4 Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 (July 2003)

(“First Review”).  The review period was January 1, 1997 to December 31, 2002. 5 Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐752 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 4047

(November 2008) (“Second Review”).

6 Crawfish Tail Meat from China:  Institution of a Five‐Year Review, 78 Fed. Reg. 65709 (Nov. 1,

2013). 7 CPA Response to Notice Initiating Sunset Review, December 2, 2013 (“Response”).    
4

the respondent interested party group response inadequate.  The Commission did not find any

circumstances that would warrant conducting a full review and determined that it would

conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act.8   

II. Domestic Like Product and Industry

A. Domestic Like Product

In making its determination under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, the Commission

defines the “domestic like product” and the “industry.”9  The Tariff Act defines “domestic like

product” as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and

uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this subtitle.”10  The Commission’s

practice in five‐year reviews is to examine the domestic like product definition from the original

investigation and consider whether the record indicates any reason to revisit the prior

findings.11  

Commerce has defined the imported merchandise within the scope of the order under

review as follows:

Freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with

fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh,

or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared.  Excluded

from the scope of this order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish,

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled.  Also excluded are saltwater crawfish

of any type, and parts thereof.12

The scope definition set out above is unchanged from Commerce’s scope definition in the

original investigation and prior reviews.   

                                                      

8 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy, EDIS Doc. No. 527430 (Feb. 17,

2014).   

9 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(10); see, e.g., Cleo Inc. v. United States, 501 F.3d 1291, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2007);

NEC Corp. v. Department of Commerce, 36 F. Supp. 2d 380, 383 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1998); Nippon Steel Corp.

v. United States, 19 CIT 450, 455 (1995); Timken Co. v. United States, 913 F. Supp. 580, 584 (Ct. Int’l

Trade 1996); Torrington Co. v. United States, 747 F. Supp. 744, 748‐49 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1990), aff’d, 938

F.2d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also S. Rep. No. 249, 96th Cong., 1st Sess. 90‐91 (1979). 11 See, e.g., Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐377

(Second Review), USITC Pub. 3831 at 8‐9 (Dec. 2005); Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731‐TA‐

752 (Review), USITC Pub. 3614 at 4 (July 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar from Turkey, Inv. No. 731‐

TA‐745 (Review), USITC Pub. 3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003). 12 Crawfish Tail Meat from China:  Final Results of Expedited Third Sunset Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 79 Fed. Reg. 13278 (Mar. 10, 2014) (“Commerce Third Review

Determination”).
5

Crawfish tail meat is one of three forms of crawfish sold in the United States; the other

two forms are live whole crawfish and boiled whole crawfish.13  Crawfish tail meat is used to

prepare dishes such as bisques and etoufees.14  Crawfish tail meat is produced by cooking live,

whole crawfish and then separating the tails from the body.  The tails are peeled and deveined

by hand, then packaged, weighed, and immediately chilled or frozen.15

In the original investigation, the Commission found a single domestic like product

consisting of crawfish tail meat, whether peeled or “shell on,” coextensive with Commerce’s

scope.16  The Commission adopted the same domestic like product definition in the first and

second five‐year reviews.17   

In this review, CPA states that it agrees with the definition of the domestic like product

that the Commission adopted in its prior proceedings.18  There is no new information obtained

during this review that would suggest any reason to revisit the Commission’s domestic like

product definition from the original determination and prior reviews.19  Accordingly, we define

the domestic like product as crawfish tail meat, commensurate with Commerce’s scope.

B. Domestic Industry  

Section 771(4)(A) of the Tariff Act defines the relevant industry as the domestic  

“producers as a whole of a domestic like product, or those producers whose collective output

of a domestic like product constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of

the product.”20  In defining the domestic industry, the Commission’s general practice has been

to include in the industry producers of all domestic production of the like product, whether toll‐

produced, captively consumed, or sold in the domestic merchant market.  

In the original investigation and prior reviews, the Commission found a single domestic

industry consisting of all domestic producers of crawfish tail meat, including processors, but not

the farmers and fishermen who harvest the live crawfish.21  In this review, CPA states that it

                                                      

13 Confidential Report (“CR”) at I‐8, Public Report (“PR”) at I‐6.   14 CR at I‐9, PR at I‐6.

15 CR at I‐9, PR at I‐7.

16 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 8. 17 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 5; Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 9.

18 Response at 21.

19 See generally, CR at I‐7‐13, PR at I‐5‐9.   20 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).  The definitions in 19 U.S.C. § 1677 are applicable to the entire subtitle

containing the antidumping and countervailing duty laws, including 19 U.S.C. §§ 1675 and 1675a.  See 19

U.S.C. § 1677.

21 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 5.  In the original determination, the Commission

determined that the statutory grower/processor provision at 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E) did not apply

because the raw agricultural product, live crawfish, is not substantially or completely devoted to

production of the processed domestic like product.  Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 8‐9.  

This remains true. CR at I‐13‐14, PR at I‐9.
6

agrees with the Commission’s previous domestic industry definition.22  There is no information

on the record showing that any of the domestic producers imported subject merchandise from

China during the review period or that otherwise presents domestic industry issues.

Accordingly, in light of the definition of the domestic like product, we define the domestic

industry as all U.S. producers of crawfish tail meat.

III. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order Would Likely Lead to

Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury Within a Reasonably

Foreseeable Time  

A. Legal Standards

In a five‐year review conducted under section 751(c) of the Tariff Act, Commerce will

revoke an antidumping or countervailing duty order unless: (1) it makes a determination that

dumping or subsidization is likely to continue or recur and (2) the Commission makes a

determination that revocation of the antidumping or countervailing duty order “would be likely

to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.”23  

The Uruguay Round Agreements Act Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”) states that

“under the likelihood standard, the Commission will engage in a counterfactual analysis; it must

decide the likely impact in the reasonably foreseeable future of an important change in the

status quo – the revocation or termination of a proceeding and the elimination of its restraining

effects on volumes and prices of imports.”24  Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in

nature.25  The U.S. Court of International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five‐year

review provisions of the Act, means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in

five‐year reviews.26  

                                                      

22 Response at 21.

23 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

24 SAA, H.R. Rep. 103‐316, vol. I at 883‐84 (1994).  The SAA states that “{t}he likelihood of injury

standard applies regardless of the nature of the Commission’s original determination (material injury,

threat of material injury, or material retardation of an industry).  Likewise, the standard applies to

suspended investigations that were never completed.”  Id. at 883.

25 While the SAA states that “a separate determination regarding current material injury is not

necessary,” it indicates that “the Commission may consider relevant factors such as current and likely

continued depressed shipment levels and current and likely continued {sic} prices for the domestic like

product in the U.S. market in making its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of

material injury if the order is revoked.”  SAA at 884.

26 See NMB Singapore Ltd. v. United States, 288 F. Supp. 2d 1306, 1352 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2003)

(“‘likely’ means probable within the context of 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c) and 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)”), aff’d

mem., 140 Fed. Appx. 268 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 26 CIT 1416, 1419 (2002)

(same); Usinor Industeel, S.A. v. United States, 26 CIT 1402, 1404 nn.3, 6 (2002) (“more likely than not”

standard is “consistent with the court’s opinion;” “the court has not interpreted ‘likely’ to imply any

particular degree of ‘certainty’”); Indorama Chemicals (Thailand) Ltd. v. United States, 26 CIT 1059, 1070

(Continued...)
7

The statute states that “the Commission shall consider that the effects of revocation or

termination may not be imminent, but may manifest themselves only over a longer period of

time.”27  According to the SAA, a “‘reasonably foreseeable time’ will vary from case‐to‐case, but

normally will exceed the ‘imminent’ timeframe applicable in a threat of injury analysis in

original investigations.”28

Although the standard in a five‐year review is not the same as the standard applied in an

original investigation, it contains some of the same fundamental elements.  The statute

provides that the Commission is to “consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of

imports of the subject merchandise on the industry if the orders are revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated.”29  It directs the Commission to take into account its prior injury

determination, whether any improvement in the state of the industry is related to the order or

the suspension agreement under review, whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if

the orders are revoked or a suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by

Commerce regarding duty absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).30  The statute further

provides that the presence or absence of any factor that the Commission is required to consider

shall not necessarily give decisive guidance with respect to the Commission’s determination.31

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under

review are revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission is directed

to consider whether the likely volume of imports would be significant either in absolute terms

or relative to production or consumption in the United States.32  In doing so, the Commission

must consider “all relevant economic factors,” including four enumerated factors:  (1) any likely

increase in production capacity or existing unused production capacity in the exporting country;

(2) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely increases in inventories; (3) the

existence of barriers to the importation of the subject merchandise into countries other than

the United States; and (4) the potential for product shifting if production facilities in the foreign

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

(2002) (“standard is based on a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury, not a certainty”);

Usinor v. United States, 26 CIT 767, 794 (2002) (“‘likely’ is tantamount to ‘probable,’ not merely

‘possible’”).

27 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

28 SAA at 887.  Among the factors that the Commission should consider in this regard are “the

fungibility or differentiation within the product in question, the level of substitutability between the

imported and domestic products, the channels of distribution used, the methods of contracting (such as

spot sales or long‐term contracts), and lead times for delivery of goods, as well as other factors that may

only manifest themselves in the longer term, such as planned investment and the shifting of production

facilities.”  Id. 29 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

30 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1). Commerce has not made any duty absorption findings with respect to

the order currently under review.  CR at I‐5, PR at I‐3.

31 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).  Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is

necessarily dispositive.  SAA at 886.

32 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).
8

country, which can be used to produce the subject merchandise, are currently being used to

produce other products.33

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the orders under review are

revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission is directed to

consider whether there is likely to be significant underselling by the subject imports as

compared to the domestic like product and whether the subject imports are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant depressing or suppressing effect

on the price of the domestic like product.34

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the orders under

review are revoked and/or a suspended investigation is terminated, the Commission is directed

to consider all relevant economic factors that are likely to have a bearing on the state of the

industry in the United States, including but not limited to the following:  (1) likely declines in

output, sales, market share, profits, productivity, return on investments, and utilization of

capacity; (2) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth,

ability to raise capital, and investment; and (3) likely negative effects on the existing

development and production efforts of the industry, including efforts to develop a derivative or

more advanced version of the domestic like product.35  All relevant economic factors are to be

considered within the context of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are

distinctive to the industry.  As instructed by the statute, we have considered the extent to

which any improvement in the state of the domestic industry is related to the order under

review and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury upon revocation.36

No respondent interested party participated in this expedited review.  The record,

therefore, contains limited new information with respect to the crawfish tail meat industry in

China.  There also is limited information on the crawfish tail meat market in the United States

during the period of review.  Accordingly, for our determination, we rely as appropriate on the

facts available from the original investigation and prior reviews, data submitted in the response

to the notice of institution, and other public data.

                                                      

33 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2)(A‐D).

34 See 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(3).  The SAA states that “{c}onsistent with its practice in

investigations, in considering the likely price effects of imports in the event of revocation and

termination, the Commission may rely on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse

effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.”  SAA at 886.

35 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

36 The SAA states that in assessing whether the domestic industry is vulnerable to injury if the

order is revoked, the Commission “considers, in addition to imports, other factors that may be

contributing to overall injury.  While these factors, in some cases, may account for the injury to the

domestic industry, they may also demonstrate that an industry is facing difficulties from a variety of

sources and is vulnerable to dumped or subsidized imports.”  SAA at 885.
9

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry if an

order is revoked, the statute directs the Commission to consider all relevant economic factors

“within the context of the business cycle and conditions of competition that are distinctive to

the affected industry.”37  The following conditions of competition inform our determination.

Demand Conditions.   In the original investigation, the Commission found two markets

for crawfish tail meat in the United States: the local market in and around Louisiana, where

purchasers preferred fresh domestic crawfish tail meat, and the national market, where

purchasers preferred a steady supply of frozen crawfish tail meat.38  The Commission found that

most fresh crawfish tail meat was sold during the season in which crawfish are harvested, which

is from January to June of each year.39  The Commission found that due to a strong preference

in the Louisiana area for fresh crawfish, fresh crawfish tail meat was sold in that area during the

harvest season, whereas frozen crawfish tail meat was sold outside the Louisiana area or during

the off‐season.40   Apparent U.S. consumption of crawfish tail meat increased during the original

period of investigation from 5.27 million pounds in 1994 to 9.52 million pounds in 1996.41

In the first review, the Commission found that the markets for crawfish tail meat

remained substantially similar to those found in the original investigation.42  Apparent U.S.

consumption of crawfish tail meat fluctuated over the first review period but was 178.7 percent

higher at the end of the review period then at the beginning of the review period.43      

In the second review, the Commission found that there were no new data on the record

to warrant revising its previous findings.  It also observed that the economic havoc in the

Louisiana area following Hurricanes Katrina, on August 29, 2005, and Rita, on September 24,

2005, reduced the demand for crawfish tail meat in that area.44  Apparent U.S. consumption of

crawfish tail meat declined significantly in 2005 before recovering in 2006 to 2004 levels.45

In this review, the information available indicates that the conditions of competition

that influence demand for crawfish tail meat have not changed significantly since the original

investigation.   Apparent U.S. consumption of crawfish tail meat in 2012, based on data from

responding domestic producers, was *** pounds.46  ***.

                                                      

37 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

38 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 13.

39 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 11‐12.

40 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 12. 41 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 14.

42 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 12‐14.

43 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 10. 44 Second Review, USITC Pub.4047 at 10.

45 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 10.

46 CR/PR at Table I‐4.  Staff’s calculations are based on the reported shipments of CPA members

and official import data.  Id.  CPA estimates that its members account for 85 percent of domestic

crawfish tail meat production.  Response at 19.
10

Supply Conditions.    In the original investigation, the Commission found that due to the

short shelf life of crawfish tail meat, sales of fresh crawfish tail meat were limited to the area in

and around Louisiana but that frozen crawfish tail meat was sold nationwide.47  It also found

that the domestic industry did not produce sufficient crawfish tail meat to meet national

demand.48  Subject imports held an increasing share of the U.S. market over the POI, increasing

from 57.6 percent in 1994 to 78.9 percent in 1995 and then to 86.8 percent in 1996.49

In the first review, the Commission observed that most domestic crawfish tail meat was

processed by small, family‐owned businesses, which consumed around 12 percent of the

annual crawfish harvest during the review period.50 The Commission found that most of U.S.

demand for crawfish tail meat was satisfied by subject imports from China, which held a market

share ranging from 61.8 percent to 92.2 percent during the first review period.51  Over the first

review period, the Commission observed that the domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market

peaked in 1997 at 38.2 percent and then declined to a period low of 4.6 percent in 2000 and

2001 due to drought conditions in Louisiana that reduced the crawfish harvest.52

In the second review, the Commission found that there were no new data on the record

to warrant revising its previous findings regarding supply conditions.  It observed that the

effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita reduced the domestic crawfish harvest in 2006 due to

increased salinity of the water and the introduction of additional marine predators.53   Domestic

industry production and shipments of crawfish tail meat declined significantly in 2006 before

increasing in 2007 to near‐2005 levels.54  The Commission found that China remained the

principal source of imported crawfish tail meat during the period of review, but observed that

small quantities were being imported from Spain and Trinidad and Tobago.55   

In this review, China remains the predominant supplier of crawfish tail meat to the U.S.

market.  Responding U.S. producers shipped *** pounds of crawfish tail meat, and subject

imports totaled 12.5 million pounds in 2012.56  Responding U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments

accounted for *** percent of apparent U.S. consumption in 2012, subject imports accounted

for *** percent, and nonsubject imports of crawfish tail meat accounted for *** percent.57

                                                      

47 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 12.

48 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 19.

49 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 19.

50 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 11.

51 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 10.   52 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 10‐11.

53 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 10.

54 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 10. 55 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 9.

56 CR/PR at Table I‐4. 57 CR/PR at Table I‐4.  CPA argues that the Staff Report, by relying on official Commerce statistics

for imports from all sources, inflates the market share held by nonsubject imports and underestimates

the market share held by subject imports.  CPA contends that aside from China and the United States,

Spain is the only other nation that produces crawfish tail meat in appreciable quantities and, therefore,

the only reliable figures for nonsubject imports are imports from Spain.  Comments at 2‐3.  However, we

(Continued...)
11

Substitutability and Other Conditions.  In the original investigation, the Commission

found that despite some differences, subject imports and the domestic like product were

substitutable.58  The Commission also observed that while many purchasers reported a

preference for fresh crawfish tail meat over frozen crawfish tail meat, they indicated that price

was an important factor in purchasing decisions.59

In the first review, the Commission found that subject imports and the domestic like

product were direct competitors in the U.S. market, notwithstanding some differences in

quality, price, and availability.60  It observed that pricing differences were important although

most purchasers stated that quality and consistency were the most important factors in their

purchasing decisions.61   

In the second review, the Commission found that there were no new data on the record

to warrant revising its previous findings.  Therefore, it again found that subject crawfish tail

meat and the domestic like product were substitutable products that competed largely on the

basis of price.62    

In this review, there is no new information on the record to suggest that the

substitutability of crawfish tail meat from domestic and subject sources has changed since the

original investigation and prior reviews.  Accordingly, we again find that the domestic like

product and subject crawfish tail meat are highly substitutable and that price continues to be

an important factor in purchasing decisions.

C. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

Original Investigation and Prior Reviews.  In the original investigation, the Commission

found that subject imports more than tripled from the first to the second year of the POI before

declining in the third year.  The volume of subject imports increased from 3.39 million pounds

in 1994 to nearly 11 million pounds in 1995 and then dropped to 7.77 million pounds in 1996.63  

The quantity of subject imports as a share of the U.S. market rose from 57.6 percent in 1994 to

78.9 percent in 1995 and then to 86.8 percent in 1996.64  Although a portion of the rising

subject import volume served demand for frozen crawfish tail meat in non‐traditional markets

outside Louisiana, the Commission found that most shipments of subject imports were made to

purchasers in the Louisiana area.65  In addition, the increases in subject import volume and

                                                                                                                                                                              

(...Continued)

rely on official Commerce statistics as the information available in this expedited review.  The

Harmonized Tariff Schedule subcategory used in the official Commerce statistics conforms closely to the

subject merchandise described in the scope definition.     58 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 23‐24.

59 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 23.

60 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 14‐15.

61 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 15.

62 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 9.

63 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 19.

64 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 19.    65 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 20.
12

market share coincided with declines in domestic industry sales volume and market share.66  

The Commission found that the volume of subject imports was significant.

In the first review, the Commission found that subject import volume increased 279.3

percent between 1997 and 2002 to 8.88 million pounds, notwithstanding the presence of the

antidumping duty order.67  It observed that responding Chinese producers reported a capacity

utilization rate of *** percent, unused capacity of *** pounds, and a high degree of export

orientation towards the United States.68  The Commission concluded that subject import

volume would likely be significant and would likely increase significantly should the order be

revoked.

In the second review, the Commission found that subject import volume and market

share were higher during the second review period than during the original period of

investigation.69  Subject import volume declined steadily from 15.4 million pounds in 2003 to

8.1 million pounds in 2005, and then increased steadily to 14.3 million pounds in 2007.70  The

Commission concluded that the subject import volume would likely be significant and would

likely increase significantly should the order be revoked.71    

Current Review.  The information available in this review shows that subject imports

have remained in the U.S. market at substantial levels.  Subject imports were 2.1 million pounds

in 2008, 13.1 million pounds in 2009, 12.9 million pounds in 2010, 2.8 million pounds in 2011,

and 12.5 million pounds in 2012.72  In 2012, subject imports from China accounted for ***

percent of apparent U.S. consumption.73  The ratio of imports of crawfish tail meat from China

to the U.S. production of crawfish tail meat in 2012 was *** percent.74  

The record does not contain any current data specific to crawfish tail meat production

or capacity in China because subject producers did not participate or furnish information in this

review.75  Nonetheless, the information available in this review indicates that Chinese producers

of crawfish tail meat remain very interested in the U.S. market.   Subject import volumes were

substantial over the period of review.  Moreover, subject producers have the capability to

                                                      

66 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 20.

67 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 16‐17.

68 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 17‐18.  The U.S. market accounted for *** percent of Chinese

producers’ shipments in 2002.  Id.

69 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 11.  In both the first and second reviews, the Commission

observed that Customs had failed to collect duties on the subject imports.  First Review, USITC Pub. 3614

at 12; Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 10.  CPA asserts that this is still the case.  See Response at 8‐9.

70 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 11. 71 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 11.

72 CR/PR at Table I‐3.         73 CR/PR at Table I‐4. 74 CR at I‐19, PR at I‐13. 75 The record also does not contain any current information about inventories of the subject

merchandise or subject producers’ ability to shift production between products.  The record does

indicate that there are no outstanding antidumping or countervailing duty orders in other markets

concerning crawfish tail meat from China.  CR at I‐4‐5, 22, PR at I‐3‐4, 16.
13

increase exports to the U.S. market; subject imports increased sharply in 2009 and 2012.76  

Global trade data show that in every year but one between 2008 and 2012, the United States

has been China’s largest export market for a category of exports that includes crawfish tail

meat.77  Consequently, subject producers have both the means and incentive to increase their

U.S. exports of the subject merchandise should the order be revoked.   

We find that the current volume of subject imports is significant.  We also find that,

given the continued interest that Chinese producers of crawfish tail meat have in the U.S.

market, their ability to sharply increase export volumes, and the historic volume of Chinese

crawfish tail meat that has entered the U.S. market, the crawfish tail meat industry in China is

likely to increase exports of subject merchandise to the United States to an even higher volume

upon revocation of the orders.  Therefore, we find that the likely volume of subject imports,

both in absolute terms and relative to consumption in the United States, would be significant if

the orders were revoked.    

D. Likely Price Effects  

Original Investigation and Prior Reviews.  In the original investigation, the Commission

found that prices for the domestic like product generally increased over the POI, whereas

subject import prices declined.78   It also found that subject imports undersold the domestic like

product in all comparisons at margins exceeding 20 percent.79  The Commission considered the

possibility that this indicated a lack of substitutability between subject imports and the

domestic like product, but found instead that the evidence on the record indicated that

purchasers were switching from the domestic like product to subject imports based primarily

on price.80  The Commission also found that because most domestic crawfish producers were

small, family‐owned businesses, they were unable to raise prices sufficiently to cover rising

production costs.  The Commission concluded that subject import underselling was significant

and suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree.81

In the first review, the Commission found that despite the presence of the antidumping

duty order, subject imports undersold the domestic like product in virtually all pricing

comparisons at margins exceeding 20 percent.82  It found that domestic prices fluctuated during

the period of review, and were slightly higher at the end of the period of review than at the

                                                      

76 CR/PR at Table I‐3. 77 CR/PR at Table I‐7.  Chinese export data are based on statistics from the Global Trade Atlas for

an HTS subheading broader than the scope definition.

78 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 22.

79 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 23.

80 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 23 (“Many {purchasers} reported a general

preference for the fresh (domestic) product over frozen tail meat, but indicated that the price

differential was sufficiently large to induce them to substitute the frozen product anyway or to mix more

expensive fresh tail meat with the subject imports in the same dish.”).

81 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 24‐26.

82 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 19‐20.
14

beginning, whereas subject import prices declined.83  The Commission concluded that subject

import underselling had suppressed prices for the domestic like product and concluded that

revocation of the order would likely result in significant underselling by the subject imports that

would likely depress and suppress domestic prices to a significant degree.84

The record of the expedited second review did not contain pricing data.  The

Commission found the average unit values (“AUVs”) for subject imports were below those for

the domestic like product.85  Based on this information as well as the pricing data collected in

the original investigation and first review, the Commission concluded that subject import

underselling would likely be significant if the order were revoked.86  It found that the likely

underselling, combined with the likely significant subject import volume, would place

downward pressure on domestic prices and have significant price‐depressing and suppressing

effects.

Current Review.  There is no new product‐specific pricing information on the record.  In

the absence of specific pricing data, we have considered with caution the AUV data that CPA

placed on the record.87  These data indicate that, from 2008 to 2012, the AUVs for subject

imports was considerably lower than the AUVs for domestic shipments.88  In 2012, the AUVs for

the subject imports was below both the AUVs for nonsubject imports and AUVs for the

domestic like product.89   

We found above that the domestic like product and the subject imports are highly

substitutable and that price continues to be an important factor in purchasing decisions.  

Because price is an important factor in purchasing decisions, if the order were revoked, subject

imports would likely increase their sales in the U.S. market by underselling the domestic like

product at high margins, as they did in the in the original investigation.  Given this evidence, the

available AUV data, and the pervasive underselling found in the original investigation and first

review, we find that subject import underselling would likely be significant if the order were

revoked.

We find that if the order were revoked, the likely significant underselling by subject

imports, combined with the likely higher volumes of subject imports, would likely exert

downward pressure on prices for the domestic like product or suppress them.  The Commission

found in the original investigation that significant underselling by the subject imports

suppressed domestic prices to a significant degree.  There is no new information on the record

                                                      

83 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 20.

84 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 20‐21.

85 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 13.

86 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 13.

87 We view comparisons of AUVs from different sources with caution because differences in

AUVs may reflect differences in product mix.  Indeed, here the subject imports are exclusively frozen

crawfish tail meat while domestic production is a mix of both fresh and frozen tail meat.

88 Response at Exhibit 8.  CPA’s subject import AUVs are based on official import data.  Its AUVs

for domestic shipments are based on its members’ sale prices to distributors and retailers in Louisiana.

Id. 89 Response at Exhibit 8; CR/PR at Table I‐3.
15

to suggest that, should the order be revoked, significant underselling by subject imports would

not suppress domestic prices to a similar degree.  Therefore, we conclude that revocation of

the order would likely result in significant subject import underselling that would likely depress

or suppress prices for the domestic like product to a significant degree.

E. Likely Impact90  

Original Investigation and Prior Reviews. In the original investigation, the Commission

found that subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry over the

POI.  Due to suppression of domestic prices by subject imports, the domestic industry

experienced declines in production, sales volumes, capacity utilization, employment, and

financial performance.91  By the end of the POI, the domestic industry was experiencing

financial losses.92  The Commission considered the argument that these trends resulted from

bad weather, but concluded that the domestic crawfish industry was materially injured by

reason of subject imports.93

In the first review, the Commission observed that the domestic industry’s financial

condition improved slightly after the imposition of the antidumping duty order, but, with the

exception of 2002, the industry continued to lose money every year and ended the review

period in worse condition than at the beginning of the review period.94  The record in the first

review also showed that the domestic industry’s financial performance was significantly worse

in the review period than over the original POI.95  Capacity utilization, wages per hour,

productivity, and the unit value of net sales dropped during the review period.96  Based on this,

the Commission found that the domestic industry was vulnerable to the continuation of

material injury from subject imports and that any benefit it had received from the

disbursement of funds under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (“CDSOA,” also

                                                      

90 Under the statute, “the Commission may consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping”

in making its determination in a five‐year review.  19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(6).  The statute defines the

“magnitude of the margin of dumping” to be used by the Commission in five‐year reviews as “the

dumping margin or margins determined by the administering authority under section 1675a(c)(3) of this

title.”  19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(C)(iv); see also SAA at 887.

Commerce expedited its antidumping duty review determination and found that revocation of

the antidumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at margins

ranging between 91.50 percent to 156.77 percent for individually investigated respondents, at 122.92

percent for the separate rate, and at 201.63 percent for the PRC‐wide rate.  Freshwater Crawfish Tail

Meat From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited First Sunset Review of the

Antidumping Duty Order, 79 Fed. Reg. 13278 (Mar. 10, 2014) (listing each individually investigated

exporter and/or producer).

91 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 28‐29.

92 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 29.

93 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3057 at 30.

94 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614  at 21‐23.

95 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614  at 23.    96 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614  at 23.
16

known as the Byrd Amendment) was insufficient to reduce its vulnerability to the continuation

of material injury.97  The Commission concluded that revocation of the order would likely have a

significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.98

In the second review, the Commission observed that evidence on the record showed

that domestic production and shipments were significantly lower than during either of the first

two years of the POI in the original investigation.99  Nevertheless, the Commission found that

domestic average unit sales values were higher in 2007 than during the original POI, and that

there were some positive effects of the order, primarily from CDSOA disbursements and the

likelihood that subject volumes would have been higher and subject import prices lower,

absent the order.100  It concluded that revocation of the order would likely have a significant

adverse impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably forseeable time.101

Current Review.   Because this is an expedited review, we have only limited information

with respect to the domestic industry’s financial performance.  The limited information

available concerning the domestic industry’s condition in these reviews consists of the data that

CPA provided in response to the notice of institution, and data from the original investigation

and prior reviews.  The record is insufficient for us to make a finding on whether the domestic

industry is vulnerable to the continuation or recurrence of material injury in the event of

revocation of the order.102

In 2012, the average capacity of the reporting domestic producers was 2.8 million

pounds of crawfish tail meat, production was 918,000 pounds, capacity utilization was 33.1

percent, and U.S. shipments were *** pounds.103  The domestic industry reported that its ratio

of operating income to sales was *** percent.104  Based on the limited information on the

record, we find that should the order be revoked, the likely significant volume and adverse

price effects of the subject imports would likely have a significant adverse impact on the

production, shipments, sales, market share, and revenues of the domestic industry.  This impact

would likely cause declines in the domestic industry’s financial performance.

                                                      

97 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 23‐24.

98 First Review, USITC Pub. 3614 at 24.

99 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 15.

100 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 16.

101 Second Review, USITC Pub. 4047 at 16.  The Commission found that the limited available

information prevented it from determining whether the domestic industry was vulnerable.  Id.

102 Based on the limited record of this review, Commissioner Pinkert finds that the domestic

industry appears to be vulnerable.   He reaches this conclusion primarily due to the relatively small

market share held by the domestic industry, its high COGS/sales ratio, and its operating *** in 2012.  

The domestic industry only held *** percent of the market in 2012, its COGS/sales ratio was ***

percent, and its operating margin that year was *** percent.  He further notes that the domestic

industry had significant unused capacity in 2012; its capacity utilization ratio was 33.1 percent.  CR/PR at

Tables I‐2 and I‐4.      103 CR/PR at Table I‐2.

104 See CR/PR at Table I‐2.
17

We have also considered the role of factors other than subject imports, including the

presence of nonsubject imports, so as not to attribute injury from other factors to the subject

imports.  Nonsubject imports account for a small share of the U.S. market, accounting for 0.0

percent to *** percent of consumption based on quantity between 2008 and 2012.105  During

those years from 2008 to 2012 when subject import volume declined, nonsubject import

volume remained at small, relatively steady levels.106    There are no other possible alternative

causes of injury on the record.  We therefore find that we have not attributed to the subject

imports any likely significant adverse impact caused by other factors.   

Accordingly, we conclude that if the orders were revoked, subject imports would likely

have a significant impact on the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.

IV. Conclusion

For the above reasons, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on

crawfish tail meat from China would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury

to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

                                                      

105 CR/PR at Table I‐4.

106 CR/PR at Table I‐4.
 
INFORMATION OBTAINED IN THE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Background

Effective November 1, 2013, the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission” or 

“USITC”) gave notice, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the 

Act”),

1 that it had instituted a review to determine whether revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on crawfish tail meat from China would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to a domestic industry.2 On February 4, 2014, the Commission determined that

the domestic interested party response to the notice of institution was adequate3 and 

respondent party group response was inadequate.4 In the absence of respondent interested 

party responses or any other circumstances that would warrant the conduct of a full review, 

the Commission determined to conduct an expedited review of the antidumping duty order 

pursuant to section 751 (c) (3) of the Act.5 The following tabulation presents information 

relating to the background and schedule of this proceeding:

1 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

2 Crawfish Tail Meat From China Institution of a Five-Year Review, 78 FR 65709 November 1, 2013. All 

interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the information requested by 

the Commission.

3 The Commission received one submission from the Crawfish Processors Alliance, a trade association 

representing domestic producers of freshwater crawfish tail meat. The CPA was a petitioner in the 

original investigation, in conjunction with the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry. 4 The Commission did not receive a response from any respondent interested parties to its notice of 

institution. 5 Crawfish Tail Meat From China; Scheduling of an Expedited Five-Year Review Concerning the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Crawfish Tail Meat From China, 79 FR 10181, February 24, 2014.

Effective date Action

September 15, 1997

Commerce’s antidumping duty order on crawfish tail meat from China

(62 FR 48218)

August 13, 2003 Continuation of antidumping duty order (68 FR 48340)

December 11, 2008 Continuation of antidumping duty order (73 FR 75392)

November 1, 2013 Commission’s institution of third five-year review (78 FR 65709)

November 1, 2013 Commerce’s initiation of third five-year review (78 FR 65614)

February 4, 2014 Commission’s notice of scheduling of an expedited five-year review (79 FR 10181)

March 10, 2014 Commerce’s final results of third sunset review (79 FR 13278)

April 4, 2014 Commission’s vote

April 28, 2014 Commission’s determination

I-1

 
The original investigation

The original investigation resulted from a petition filed on September 20, 1996, by the 

Crawfish Processors Alliance (“CPA”) alleging that an industry in the United States was 

materially injured and threatened with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) 

imports of crawfish tail meat from China. On August 1, 1997, Commerce determined that 

imports of crawfish tail meat from China was being sold at LTFV.6 On September 8, 1997, the 

Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially injured by reason 

of LTFV imports of crawfish tail meat from China.7 Commerce issued an antidumping duty order

on crawfish tail meat from China on September 15, 1997.

8

First five-year review

The Commission instituted its first five-year review on August 2, 2002. The Commission 

received a joint response filed on behalf of the Crawfish Processors Alliance (“CPA”); its 

members; and the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry (“LDAF”). The Commission 

also received a response to the notice of institution on behalf of the China Chamber of 

Commerce for Import & Export of Foodstuffs, Native Produce & Animal By-Products (CCCFNA) 

and 16 foreign producers and/or exporters of subject merchandise, described as representing 

the “overwhelming majority” of the crawfish tail meat industry in China. On November 4, 2002,

the Commission determined that both the domestic and respondent interested party responses 

were adequate and determined that it should proceed to a full review pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.9

On July 28, 2003, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on crawfish tail meat from China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonable foreseeable time.10

Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on August 13, 2003.

11

6 Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Freshwater Crawfish From the People’s 

Republic of China, 62 FR 41347, August 1, 1997. 7 Crawfish Tail Meat From China Determination, 62 FR 49255, September 19, 1997.

8 Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China, 62 FR 48218, September 15, 1997.

9 Notice of Commission Determination To Conduct A Full Five Year Review Concerning the 

Antidumping Duty Order On Crawfish Tail Meat From China, 67 FR 69557, November 18, 2002.

10 Crawfish Tail Meat From China: Affirmative Determination of Material Injury to a US Industry, 68 FR 

45276, August 1, 2003. 11 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order: Freshwater Crawfish From the People’s Republic of China, 

68 FR 48340, August 13, 2003.

I-2

 
Second five-year review

The Commission instituted its second five-year review on July 1, 2008. On October 6, 

2008, the Commission determined that the domestic interested party response to its notice of 

institution was adequate; the Commission also determined that the respondent interested 

party response was inadequate. The Commission found no other circumstances that would 

warrant conducting a full review. Accordingly, the Commission determined that it would 

conduct an expedited review pursuant to section 752(c)(3) of the Act.12

On November 25, 2008, the Commission determined that revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on crawfish tail meat from China would be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonable 

foreseeable time.13 Commerce issued a continuation of the antidumping duty order on 

December 11, 2008.14

Commerce’s final results of expedited third five-year review

Commerce issued its final results of its review on March 10, 2014 (Table I-1).

Commerce’s administrative reviews

Commerce has completed five administrative reviews and one new shipper review of 

the antidumping duty order on crawfish tail meat from China since the second five-year 

review.

15 The results of the administrative reviews are shown in Table I-1. Commerce made no 

duty absorption determinations since 2001. 

12 Scheduling of an Expedited Five Year Review Concerning the Antidumping Duty Order On Crawfish 

Tail Meat From China, 73 FR 62318, October 20, 2008.

13 Determination of Commission of Expedited Second Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

On Crawfish Tail Meat From China, 73 FR 72833, December 1, 2008. 14 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish From the People’s Republic of 

China, 73 FR 75392, December 11, 2008. 15 Commerce conducted a new-shipper review and found a weighted-average dumping margin of 

12.37 percent for merchandise produced by Henan Baoshu Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (Henan Baoshu), 

and exported by Nanjing Gemsen International Co., Ltd., for September 1, 2008 through August 31, 

2009. Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative and New-Shipper Reviews, 75 FR 79337, December 20, 2010. Commerce also 

amended its final results of the 2005-06 administrative review for Chinese firm Xuzhou Jinjiang 

Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (“Xuzhou”’) to reflect the revised margin of 188.52 for Xuzhou for September 1, 

2005 through August 31, 2006. Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of China: 

Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Accordance With Final Court 

Decision, 76 FR 30648, May 26, 2011. 

I-3

 
Table I-1

Crawfish tail meat: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order completed since second 

five-year review, and Commerce’s final results of third sunset review

Period of review Producer or exporter

Firm-specific rate 

(percent)

9/1/06-8/31/07

(74 FR 6571,

February 10, 2009)

Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture Developing Co. Ltd 0.00

PRC-wide rate 223.01

9/1/07-8/31/08

(74 FR 56180,

October 9, 2009)

Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd 0.00

PRC-wide rate 223.01

9/1/08-8/31/09

(75 FR 79337,

December 20, 2010)

Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. 9.39

Shanghai Ocean Flavor International Trading Co., Ltd. 41.92

China Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co., Ltd. 18.87

Xuzhou Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd 5.39

PRC-wide 223.01

9/1/09-8/31/10

(77 FR 21529,

April 10, 2012)

Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd 0.80

China Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co., Ltd. 3.20

PRC-wide rate 223.01

9/1/09-8/31/10

(78 FR 22228,

April 15, 2013)

Xiping Opeck Food Co., Ltd. 0.00

China Kingdom (Beijing) Import & Export Co. Ltd. 0.00

Yangcheng Hi-King Agriculture Developing Co. Ltd 0.00

Nanjng Gemsen International Co. Ltd. 12.37

PRC-wide rate 223.01

March 10, 2014

(79 FR 13278)

China Everbright Trading Company 156.77

Binzhou Prefecture Foodstuffs Import Export Corp. 119.39

Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp. 91.50

Yancheng Foreign Trade Corp. 108.05

All other exporters with a separate rate 122.92

PRC-wide entity 201.63

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Previous and related title VII investigations

Other than the original investigation and subsequent first and second five-year reviews, 

crawfish tail meat has not been the subject of antidumping or countervailing duty investigations 

in the United States. 

I-4
THE PRODUCT

Commerce’s scope

In the most recent Federal Register notice in which the scope of the order concerning 

crawfish tail meat from China was published, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as 

follows:16

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is freshwater crawfish, in all its 

forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; 

whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or 

prepared. Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole 

crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of 

any type, and parts thereof. 

US tariff treatment

Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (HTSUS) under statistical reporting numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 

1605.40.10.90, which are the HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled 

crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in 

2000, and HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which are 

reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. On February 10, 2012, the Department added 

HTSUS statistical reporting number 0306.29.01.00 to the scope description pursuant to a 

request by CBP.

17 The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes 

only. 

Domestic like product and domestic industry

The domestic like product is the domestically produced product or products which are 

like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the subject 

merchandise. The domestic industry is the U.S. producers as a whole of the domestic like 

product, or those producers whose collective output of the domestic like product constitutes a 

major proportion of the total domestic production of the product.

In the original investigation, the Commission defined the domestic like product as 

crawfish tail meat, whether peeled or “shell on,” coextensive with Commerce’s scope.18 The 

16 Continuation of Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China, 73 FR 75392, December 11, 2008. 17 The 2014 general rate of duty for these subheadings is free.

18 Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Final) USITC Publication 3057 (August 1997), 

p. 8.

I-5

 
Commission adopted the same domestic like product definition in the first five-year review and 

the second five-year review.19 The CPA states that it agrees with the definition of the domestic 

like product as stated by the Commission in its notice of institution.20

In the original investigations, the Commission defined the domestic industry to 

encompass all domestic producers of crawfish tail meat, including processors but not the 

farmers and fisherman who harvest live crawfish.21 The Commission adopted the same 

domestic industry definition in the first and second five-year reviews.

22 The CPA states that it 

agrees with the definition of the domestic industry as stated by the Commission in its notice of 

institution.23

Physical characteristics and uses24

In the United States, crawfish are sold for commercial consumption in three forms: live 

whole, whole boiled, and processed tail meat. Accounting for a very large share of U.S. sales, 

live whole crawfish are the complete living animals (tail, head, body, claws, and shell) that are 

sold to end users who boil, peel, sometimes season, and eat them. Whole boiled crawfish 

account for a very small share of U.S. sales; they are typically packaged with seasonings and are 

shipped either fresh or frozen. Processors peel blanched whole crawfish and package the meat 

into bags that are shipped either fresh or frozen.

Most domestic tail meat is sold fresh, whereas all the imported tail meat from China is 

sold frozen because of the perishable nature of the product. In addition to the fresh versus 

frozen distinction, domestic tail meat is usually sold with the fat on, while imported tail meat 

from China traditionally has been sold with the fat washed off. The fat of the crawfish is actually 

its hepatopancreas, which is golden-yellow in color. The fat imparts flavor and thus is generally 

preferred by customers in Louisiana; however, non-traditional markets served mainly by 

imported tail meat may be indifferent to the issue. In addition, because the fat spoils more 

quickly than the meat, the meat is sold washed (without fat) in frozen form to extend its shelf 

life. Live whole crawfish are used for crawfish “boils” or outdoor parties in Louisiana. Whole 

boiled crawfish are mainly consumed in Sweden for its August Waterfest festival. Crawfish tail 

meat is used in prepared dishes, such as bisques and etoufees.

19 Crawfish Tail Meat From China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Review) USITC Publication 3614 (July 2003), p. 

5. Crawfish Tail Meat From China Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Second Review) USITC Publication 4047, p. 9.

20 Response of the CPA to the Commission’s notice of institution, December 2, 2013 (“Response, 

December 2, 2013”), p. 21. 21 Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Final) USITC Publication 3057, (August 1997), 

p. 9.22 Crawfish Tail Meat From China Inv. No. 731-TA-752 (Second Review) USITC Publication 4047, p. 5.

23 Response, December 2, 2013, p. 21. 24 This section was taken largely from INV-AA-083, June 27, 2003 (“Confidential Review Report”), pp. 

I-10-11.

I-6

 
Manufacturing process25

In the first stage of crawfish tail meat production, the live whole crawfish are placed in 

cooking baskets and heated in unseasoned and untreated water at 200°F for five to six minutes. 

The crawfish are then removed from the water and discharged onto a cooling table or platform. 

Once cooled, they are placed on large peeling tables, where the tails are separated from the 

body and are peeled and deveined by hand. The head, body, claws, and shell are discarded as 

waste. 

Peeled tail meat is delivered directly to the packaging room, where the meat is 

inspected for extraneous pieces of shell or debris missed by the peelers. The meat is then 

placed in plastic bags, weighed, and immediately chilled. The bags are packed in boxes, iced, 

and placed in a cooler room, ready for shipment as fresh tail meat. Meat intended to be frozen 

is placed directly in the freezer. After freezing, the bags are boxed and placed in freezer 

storage, usually to be sold after the season, which typically begins as early as January and runs 

until the end of May.

Interchangeability and customer and producer perceptions

During the original investigation,the Commission found that despite the large

differential in prices between the fresh domestic crawfish tail meat and the frozen subject 

imports, the products were substitutable. The Commission found that while some portion of

the market had a preference for the fresh domestic product, the preference was neither as

absolute nor as widespread as the respondentssuggested. Among 14 responding purchasers,

seven reported that fresh and frozen tail meats were easily substituted and an additional two

reported that they were occasionally substituted. Moreover, a number of purchasers, mostly

located in Louisiana, reported that they had switched from either fresh or frozen domestic tail

meat to the Chinese product on the basis of price.26

During the first review, the Commission found that most domestically produced crawfish

tail meat was sold fresh, and all subject imports were sold frozen. Some quality differences,

such as taste and texture, may have existed between the domestic like product and the subject

imports. Such quality differences were more important to some Louisiana purchasersthan to 

national purchasers, especially restaurant chains. Most market participants agreed that some

differencesin availability and price existed between the domestic like product and subject

imports. However, most market participants, including purchasers, agreed that domestically

produced crawfish tail meat and subject imports were direct competitorsin the U.S. market.

Moreover, pricing differences were important. Only a handful of customers would choose

higher priced domestically produced crawfish tail meat over less expensive subject imports

given price differences of 40 percent or more. Among purchasers, most ranked

25 This section was taken largely from the Confidential Review Report, p. I-12.

26 Published Investigation Report, p. 23.

I-7

 
quality/consistency as the most important factor, but price as the second most important

factor.27

During the second review, the Commission found that “domestic and Chinese crawfish 

tail meat are, in the eyes of most purchasers, fungible commodities that compete largely on the 

basis of price. In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in this current review, the

CPA indicated that crawfish tail meat from the United States and China remains fungible.

28

Channels of distribution29

In the U.S. market,sales of crawfish tail meat are made to distributors, restaurants, food

stores, seafood markets, and other customers. During the period examined in the original

investigation, the channels of distribution were similar but with a trend toward increasing sales

by U.S. producers to food stores, away from restaurants and distributors. For U.S. importers,

there was a trend toward more sales to food stores and slightly less sales to distributors.

Overall, U.S. importers during the original investigation sold 70 percent to distributors, 11

percent to restaurants, and 19 percent to food stores in 1996. U.S. processorssold 11 percent

to distributors, 15 percent to restaurants, 61 percent to food stores, 12 percent to seafood

markets, and 1 percent to other markets in 1996.

During the the first review, U.S. processorssold primarily to food stores and the U.S.

importers sold primarily to distributors. Food stores and restaurants, however, were the

primary final outlets for both the U.S.-produced and imported tail meat. During the second 

review, the Commission noted the absence of any new information that would cause it to 

reconsider its findings that subject imports are sold into the same markets and through the 

same channels of distribution, as the domestic like product.

Pricing and related information

During the original investigation,the Commission found underselling by the subject

importsto be significant, and concluded that subject imports had suppressed prices for the

domestic product to a significant degree. All price comparisons between subject imports and 

the domestic like product, in every market, showed underselling in excess of 20 percent. Subject 

imports undersold the domestic like product in every comparison. The Commission considered, 

and rejected, the possibility that the significant price differencesrepresented a lack of

substitutability between the subject imports and the domestic like product, finding that the 

preference for the domestic like product was neither as absolute nor as widespread as the

respondents suggested.30

27 Published Review Report, p. 11.

28 Response, December 2, 2013 p. 7.

29 This section was taken largely from the Confidential Review Report, p. I-16.

30 Published Investigation Report, p. 23.

I-8

 
During the first review, underselling by the subject imports was persistent and 

widespread despite the existence of the order. Subject imports undersold the domestic like 

product in virtually every comparison, regardless of product, region, or type of purchaser. 

Underselling margins typically exceeded 20 percent. Subject import prices were lower than 

prices for fresh domestically produced tail meat, but even undersold domestically produced 

frozen tail meat by significant margins.31 For example, in the fourth quarter of 2002, fresh 

domestic crawfish tail meat sold for $7.32 per pound, frozen domestic crawfish tail meat sold 

for $7.16 per pound, and frozen imported crawfish tail meat from China sold for $*** per 

pound.32

According to the CPA in the second review, average quarterly unit values for CPA 

members’ commercialshipmentsin 2007 ranged from $6.71 to $9.17 per pound. By

comparison, the landed, duty-paid average unit value of imports of crawfish tail meat from

China in 2007 was $3.03 per pound (the average unit value of imports under the most relevant

HTS statistical reporting number, 1605.40.1010, was $3.44 per pound).33

According to the CPA in the current third review, average quarterly unit values for CPA 

members’ commercial shipments in CY2012 was $10.62 to $13.46 per pound. By comparison, 

imports from China under HTSUS 1605.40.1010 had average quarterly unit values of $6.21 to 

$6.38 per pound. The differential in average unit value would seem to support the CPA’s 

contention that underselling in the U.S. crawfish market is a continuing issue of concern.34

THE INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. producers

In the original investigation, the U.S. crawfish tail meat industry was comprised of about 

40 processors, all but one of which was located in Louisiana. The processors were generally 

small, family-owned businesses, with sales averaging between $350,000 and $500,000 per year. 

Thirty-one firms, accounting for between 80 and 85 percent of U.S. production of crawfish tail 

meat during 1996, provided the Commission with usable data. 

At the time of the Commission's first review in 2002, the composition of the U.S. 

crawfish tail meat industry was substantially the same as in 1996. Processors were small familyowned businesses with annual sales averaging between $300,000 and $800,000 per year. 

Complete responses to the Commission's questionnaire in that full review were provided by 37 

U.S. processors, which accounted for 85-90 percent of domestic production of crawfish tail 

meat. 

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution in the second five-year review, 

the CPA provided a list of 63 U.S. producers of the domestic like product; however, the CPA 

31 Published Review Report, p. 14.

32 Confidential Review Report, tables V-1 and V-2.

33 Response, August 20, 2008, p. 12.

34 Response, December 2, 2013, p. 14.

I-9

 
noted that some of the entities it listed may not have been in operation.35 The CPA reported

that there had been “temporary disruptions” that adversely affected the domestic crawfish 

industry during the 2006 season, namely, the drought of the summer of 2005 and hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita in August-September 2005. In particular, the hurricanes resulted in incursions 

of sea water from the storm surge that increased salinity and introduced marine predators in 

some crawfish harvesting areas, resulting in a significant loss of demand in some of the 

domestic industry's most important traditional markets.36 

In its response to the Commission’s notice of institution of this third five-year review, 

the CPA provided a list of 53 U.S. producers of the domestic like product.

37

U.S. producers’ trade and financial data

Table I-2 presents data on U.S. producers’ select trade and financial data.

Table I-2

Crawfish tail meat: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 1996, 2002, 2007, and 2012

Item

Calendar year

1996 2002 2007 2012

Average capacity (1,000 pounds) 3,260 4,311 (

1

) 2,770

Production quantity (1,000 pounds) 1,260 1,304 1,233 918

Capacity utilization 38.6 30.2 (

1

) 33.1

U.S. shipments:

 Quantity (1,000 pounds) 1,254 1,380 *** ***

 Value ($1,000) 7,118 8,431 *** ***

 Unit value (dollars per pound) $5.67 $6.11 $*** $***

Net sales ($1,000) 7,114 7,410 (

1

) ***

Purchased crawfish ($1,000) 4,402 4,962 (

1

) (

1

)

Total expenses ($1,000) 7,300 9,144 (

1

) (

1

)

Net income or (loss)2 ($1,000) (186) 988 (

1

) (

1

)

Total expenses/sales (percent) 102.6 123.4 (

1

) (

1

)

Net income or (loss)/sales (percent) (2.6) 13.3 (

1

) (

1

)

Table continued on next page.

35 The CPA explained that all domestic processors of crawfish tail meat, which are located in the State 

of Louisiana, are required to be licensed by the state. The list of domestic producers that the CPA 

included in its response to the Commission’s notice of institution was obtained from the Louisiana 

Department of Agriculture and Forestry and includes all entities in Louisiana that are licensed by the 

State of Louisiana to process crawfish tail meat.

36 Response, August 20, 2008, p. 18 and exh. 10.

37 Response, December 2, 2013, exh. 9.

I-10

 
Table I-2

Crawfish tail meat: U.S. producers’ trade and financial data, 1996, 2002, 2007, and 2012

Item

Calendar year

1996 2002 2007 2012

Cost of goods sold (

1

) (

1

) (

1

) ***

Gross profit or (loss) (

1

) (

1

) (

1

) ***

SG&A (

1

) (

1

) (

1

) ***

Operating income or (loss) (

1

) (

1

) (

1

) ***

Unit cost of goods sold (

1

) (

1

) (

1

) ***

Unit operating income or (loss) (

1

) (

1

) (

1

) ***

Cost of goods sold/sales (percent) (

1

) (

1

) (

1

) ***

Operating income or (loss)/sales (

1

) (

1

) (

1

) ***

1 Not available.

2 Other income was added to net sales to calculate net income in 2002. The only amount of consequence 

was $2,723,000 in Byrd Amendment receipts in 2002. The amount reported by questionnaire respondents 

was far less than the $7,468,892 amount disbursed by Customs in that year in part because of the 

exclusion of several respondents from the reporting data in the first review, but was primarily attributable 

to a lag in the receipt of funds into 2003 by questionnaire respondents.

Note.--Data reported for 1996 accounted for approximately 80-85 percent of U.S. production during the 

original investigation. Data reported for 2002 accounted for approximately 85-90 percent of U.S. 

production in the first review. Data reported for 2007 accounted for approximately 85 percent of U.S. 

production in the second review. Data reported for 2012 accounted for approximately 85 percent of U.S. 

production in the third review. 

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Calculated data are based on 

unrounded numbers.

Source: Compiled from data appearing in the Confidential Investigation Report, tables III-5, VI-2, and C-1; 

the Confidential Review Report, tables I-1, III-4, and III-5; Response, August 20, 2008, exh. 5 and 

Response, December 2, 2013.

Related parties 

Previously (i.e., in the original investigation and in the second review), in the limited 

instances in which the Commission has identified companies as both producers and importers 

of crawfish tail meat, it did not find that circumstances warranted exclusion from the domestic 

industry. In the current review, no CPA members were characterized as related parties and 

there were no overlapping entries for domestic producers and U.S. importers.38

38 Response, December 2, 2013, p. 18.

I-11

 
U.S. IMPORTS AND APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION

U.S. importers

In the original investigations, 12 U.S. importers responded to the Commission’s 

questionnaires, accounting for about 80 percent of estimated U.S. imports from China during 

1996. All reported imports from China were of frozen crawfish tail meat and were primarily 

imported from export trading companies rather than from the processors themselves. In their 

responses to the Commission’s notice of institution in the first review, Chinese respondents 

listed 18 U.S. companies that imported crawfish tail meat during May-July 2002, while the 

domestic respondents listed over 90 U.S. importers of the subject merchandise. During the 

Commission’s second five-year review, seven U.S. importers of the subject merchandise from 

China provided usable data in response to Commission questionnaires. At the time, counsel for 

the CPA noted that there had been problems enforcing the antidumping duty order, partly 

because importers had been setting up small “dummy” companies to enter and exit the U.S. 

market, complicating duty collection. The CPA provided in its response to the Commission’s 

notice of institution in the second review a listing of 169 currently operating U.S. importers of 

the subject merchandise from China. In the current review the CPA has identified 45 importers, 

and has again noted the challenges of duty collection (citing Customs sources to note that $368 

million in duty assessments were owed but uncollected as of September 30, 2011).39

U.S. imports

Table I-3 presents U.S. imports of crawfish tail meat during 2008-12. 

39 Response, December 2, 2013, pp. 8-9.

I-12

 
Table I-3

Crawfish tail meat: U.S. imports, by source, 2008-2012

Item

Calendar year

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. imports:

 China 2,070 13,137 12,893 2,829 12,507 

 Other sources 580 1,532 414 624 752 

 Total imports 2,650 14,669 13,307 3,452 13,258 

LDP ($1,000)

U.S. imports:

 China 9,007 62,218 75,687 16,456 78,752

 Other sources 2,906 7,735 2,511 4,061 5,307

 Total imports 11,913 69,953 78,198 20,517 84,059

LDP value (per pound)

U.S. imports:

 China $4.35 $4.74 $5.87 $5.82 $6.30 

 Other sources 5.01 5.05 6.06 6.51 7.06 

 Total imports 4.50 4.77 5.88 5.94 6.34 

Share of total quantity (percent)

U.S. imports:

 China 78.1 89.6 96.9 81.9 94.3

 Other sources 21.9 10.4 3.1 18.1 5.7

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of total value (percent)

U.S. imports:

 China 75.6 88.9 96.8 80.2 93.7

 Other sources 24.4 11.1 3.2 19.8 6.3

 Total imports 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note: HTS statistical reporting number 1605.40.1010.

Source: Official Commerce statistics. 

Ratio of imports to U.S. production

The ratio of imports of crawfish tail meat from China to the U.S. production of crawfish 

tail meat in 2012 was *** percent. The ratio of imports from nonsubject sources to U.S. 

production of crawfish tail meat was *** percent and the ratio of imports from all sources was 

*** percent.

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares

Table I-4 present data on U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments, U.S. shipments of imports, and 

apparent U.S. consumption. 

I-13
Table I-4

Crawfish tail meat: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, apparent consumption, and 

market shares, 1996, 2002, 2007, and 2012

Item

Calendar year

1996 2002 2007 2012

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 1,254 1,380 *** ***

U.S. imports:

 China 8,268 8,875 14,323 12,507 

 Other sources 0 290 490 752 

 Total imports 8,268 9,165 14,813 13,258 

Apparent U.S. consumption1

9,522 10,546 *** ***

Value ($1,000)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 7,118 8,431 *** ***

U.S. imports:

 China 22,635 23,621 43,439 78,752

 Other sources 0 808 2,488 5,307

 Total imports 22,635 24,429 45,927 84,059

Apparent U.S. consumption 29,753 32,860 *** ***

Share of consumption based on quantity (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 13.2 13.1 *** ***

U.S. imports:

 China 86.8 84.2 *** ***

 Other sources1

0.0 2.8 *** ***

 Total imports 86.8 86.9 *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of consumption based on value (percent)

U.S. producers’ U.S. shipments 23.9 25.7 *** ***

U.S. imports:

 China 76.1 71.9 *** ***

 Other sources1 0.0 2.5 *** ***

 Total imports 76.1 74.3 *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note.--For 1996, data consist of U.S. producers’ internal consumption and U.S. commercial shipments 

plus shipments of imports; for 2002 and 2007, data consist of U.S. producers’ internal consumption and 

U.S. commercial shipments plus imports.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Calculated data are based on 

unrounded numbers. Imports from 1996 are based on questionnaire data; imports from 2007 are based 

on official statistics. (The quantities of subject imports based on official statistics for the original 

investigation period were the following: 1.6 million pounds in 1994; 2.8 million pounds in 1995; and 2.8 

million pounds in 1996).

Footnotes continued on next page.

I-14
Note.--Imports reported from official statistics are based on HTS statistical reporting numbers 

0306.19.0010 (freshwater crawfish), 0306.29.0000 (crustaceans, not frozen, other), and 1605.40.1010 

(peeled freshwater crawfish tail meat). During the original investigation, crawfish tail meat was classified 

under HTS subheadings 0306.19.00 and 0306.29.00. After the first review, the continuation order in 

August 2003 defined the scope as including two additional HTS statistical reporting numbers--

1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90. In July 2000, HTS 1605.40.1000 split into 1605.40.1010 (peeled 

freshwater crawfish tail meat) and 1605.40.1090 (crustaceans other than peeled crawfish tail meat), the 

latter of which was determined by the Commission to contain only a small quantity of in-scope 

merchandise but a majority of out-of-scope products.

Source: Confidential Review Report, table I-1 for 1994-2002 (wherein data for 1994-96 are based on 

questionnaire data and data for 1997-2002 are based on official Commerce statistics); official Commerce 

statistics (HTS statistical reporting numbers 0306.19.0010, 0306.29.0000, and 1605.40.1010) for 2003-

07; and official Commerce statistics (HTS statistical reporting number 1605.40.1010) for 2008-12.

THE INDUSTRY IN CHINA

During the original investigation, the Commission noted that the number of Chinese 

processors of crawfish tail meat stood at approximately 50 in 1995, but fell to about 15 during 

1996. Approximately 95 percent of the Chinese production of crawfish at that time was located 

in Jiangsu Province, with the remaining 5 percent located in Anhui and Hubei Provinces. No 

Chinese processors of crawfish tail meat participated in the original investigation. Ten firms 

were listed as exporters of Chinese crawfish tail meat during the period for which data were 

collected in the original final investigation. During the conduct of the Commission’s first full 

review, 10 out of 16 participating Chinese processors/exporters provided usable data in 

response to the Commission’s questionnaire. In its response to the Commission’s notice of 

institution in the second review, the CPA provided a list of 119 producers of the subject 

merchandise in China that currently export or have exported subject merchandise to the United 

States or other countries since 2002. In the current review, the CPA has identified 34 known 

producers/exporters of crawfish tail meat in China. 

Table I-7 presents data on Chinese export shipments, by export market, during 2008-12.

As detailed in table I-7, the United States was the largest export market for China in all but one 

year between 2008-12.40

40 HTS subheading 1605.40 includes nonsubject merchandise such as other crustaceans and prepared 

meals using fish meat.

I-15

 
Table I-7

Crawfish tail meat: China’s export shipments, by export market, 2008-12

Export market

Calendar year

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Value ($1,000)

United States 32,112 31,233 60,289 17,911 104,619

Denmark 29,501 22,786 24,275 41,162 38,995

Sweden 22,112 24,804 33,263 30,719 35,175

Belgium 19,394 17,064 20,533 23,360 28,222

Netherlands 24,518 20,400 14,334 30,008 25,762

Singapore 3,500 28,915 26,635 6,121 27,386

Japan 6,651 4,935 8,137 6,523 7,772

United Kingdom 10,923 6,907 5,602 8,212 7,124

France 662 954 1,783 758 1,792

South Korea 967 1,014 490 509 794

All Others 15,931 7,190 11,705 12,788 6,229

World 166,271 166,201 207,046 178,072 283,869

Source: Global Trade Atlas, (HTS subheading 1605.40, which includes not only the subject merchandise 

but also nonsubject merchandise such as other crustaceans and prepared meals using fish meat).

Tariff or non-tariff barriers to trade

There are no outstanding antidumping and/or countervailing duty measures against 

crawfish tail meat produced in China in third country markets.

THE GLOBAL MARKET

Table I-8 shows the ten largest exporting countries of crawfish tail meat.41 As detailed in 

table I-8, China is the world’s largest exporter of crawfish tail meat in the world. According to 

Global Trade Atlas, exports from China increased by 70.7 percent during 2008-12. 

41 HTS subheading 1605.40 includes nonsubject merchandise such as other crustaceans and prepared 

meals using fish meat.

I-16

 
Table I-8

Crawfish tail meat: Top ten largest exporting countries, 2008-12

Country

Calendar year

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Value ($1,000)

China 166,458 166,201 207,046 178,072 283,869

Netherlands 27,113 25,939 35,241 46,505 42,347

Denmark 26,383 26,479 25,032 31,083 32,468

Spain 10,839 10,956 11,135 10,463 13,437

Turkey 14,401 10,382 12,279 11,641 8,400

Colombia 3,524 2,310 3,011 4,260 6,682

Belgium 9,310 3,976 4,981 8,034 4,590

Sweden 1,535 1,615 1,580 2,041 3,993

Japan 1,401 1,840 1,892 2,912 3,140

Canada 379 139 854 1,397 2,848

Source: Global Trade Atlas, (HTS subheading 1605.40, which includes not only the subject merchandise 

but also nonsubject merchandise such as other crustaceans and prepared meals using fish meat).

I-17
 
AͲ1

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY DATA

I-16

Table I-3Crawfish tail meat: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1994-96, 1997-2002, and 2003-07

Item 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Average capacity (1,000

 pounds) 3,585 3,111 3,260 4,175 4,875 4,218 3,861 4,154 4,311 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Production (1,000 pounds) 2,237 1,886 1,260 1,300 1,548 959 308 573 1,304 1,455 1,376 1,359 710 1,233Capacity utilization (percent) 62.4 60.6 38.6 31.1 31.8 22.7 8.0 13.8 30.2 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)U.S. shipments: Quantity (1,000 pounds) 2,232 1,877 1,254 1,444 1,725 997 315 625 1,380 *** *** *** *** ***

 Value ($1,000) 11,461 10,352 7,118 8,262 10,801 6,737 2,609 4,540 8,431 *** *** *** *** ***

 Unit value ($/pound) $5.13 $5.51 $5.67 $5.72 $6.26 $6.76 $8.28 $7.27 $6.11 $*** $*** $*** $*** $***

Inventories/U.S. shipments 1.1 1.2 2.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 4.8 1.8 0.8 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

PRWs (number) 1,392 862 760 787 940 808 495 673 940 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Hours worked (1,000 hours) 530 348 253 436 555 417 201 360 592 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Wages paid ($1,000) 2,596 2,242 1,634 2,200 2,692 1,884 707 1,438 2,948 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Hourly wages $4.90 $6.45 $6.47 $5.05 $4.85 $4.51 $3.52 $4.00 $4.98 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Productivity (pounds per hour) 4.2 5.4 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 1.5 1.7 2.3 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Unit labor costs (per pound) $1.16 $1.19 $1.30 $1.65 $1.60 $1.92 $2.27 $2.23 $2.09 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Table continued on following page.
Table I-3--Continued

Crawfish tail meat: U.S. producers’ trade, employment, and financial data, 1994-96, 1997-2002, and 2003-07

Item 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Net sales ($1,000) 11,514 10,241 7,114 7,098 9,354 5,991 2,477 4,026 7,410 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Purchased crawfish ($1,000) 6,820 5,963 4,402 4,495 6,035 4,250 1,754 2,996 4,962 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Total expenses ($1,000) 11,058 9,952 7,300 7,309 10,257 7,024 2,753 4,908 9,144 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Net income or (loss)2 ($1,000) 456 288 (186) (211) (902) (1,017) (275) (882) 988 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Total expenses/sales (percent) 96.0 97.2 102.6 103.0 109.7 117.2 111.1 121.9 123.4 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)Net income or (loss)/sales (percent) 4.0 2.8 (2.6) (3.0) (9.6) (17.0) (11.1) (21.9) 13.3 (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

1 Not available.

2 Other income was added to net sales to calculate net income in 1998, 1999, and 2002. The only amount of consequence was $2,723,000 in Byrd Amendment receipts in 2002. The amount

reported by questionnaire respondents was far less than the $7,468,892 amount disbursed by Customs in that year in part because of the exclusion of several respondents from the reporting data in

the first review, but was primarily attributable to a lag in the receipt of funds into 2003 by questionnaire respondents.Note.--Data reported for 1994-96 accounted for approximately 80-85 percent of U.S. production during the original investigation. Data reported for 1997-2002 accounted for approximately 85-90percent of U.S. production in the first review. Data reported for 2003-07 accounted for approximately 85 percent of U.S. production in the second review.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown. Calculated data are based on unrounded numbers. Source: Compiled from data appearing in the Confidential Investigation Report, tables III-5, VI-2, and C-1; the Confidential Review Report, tables I-1, III-4, and III-5; and Response, August 20,

2008, exh. 5.

I-17