U.S. International Trade Commission

Publication 4083 June 2009

Washington, DC 20436

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam

Investigation No. 731-TA-1012 (Review)
U.S. International Trade Commission

COMMISSIONERS 

 

Shara L. Aranoff, Chairman 

Daniel R. Pearson, Vice Chairman 

Deanna Tanner Okun 

Charlotte R. Lane 

Irving A. Williamson 

Dean A. Pinkert

Robert A. Rogowsky

Staff assigned

Address all communications to 

Secretary to the Commission 

United States International Trade Commission 

Washington, DC 20436

Director of Operations

Elizabeth Haines, Investigator 

Joanna Bonarriva, Industry Analyst 

Gerald Benedick, Economist 

David Boyland, Accountant 

Michael Haldenstein, Attorney 

Steven Hudgens, Senior Statistician 

Douglas Corkran, Supervisory Investigator
U.S. International Trade Commission

Washington, DC 20436 

www.usitc.gov

Publication 4083 June 2009

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam

Investigation No. 731-TA-1012 (Review)

i

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Part I: Introduction and overview

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

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

Subsequent proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Litigation and U.S. government findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2

Legislative and regulatory actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-3

Related Title VII investigations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-7

Statutory criteria and organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Statutory criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-8

Organization of the report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Commerce’s reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

Administrative reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10

New shipper reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Circumvention reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-11

Changed circumstance reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Five-year review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-12

Distribution of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-13

The subject merchandise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Commerce’s scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

Tariff treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-15

The domestic like product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

 The production process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

 Farming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-16

Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-17

U.S. market participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

U.S. farmers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-18

U.S. processors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-19

U.S. importers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-22

U.S. purchasers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Apparent U.S. consumption and market shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-23

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market

U.S. channels of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

U.S. market characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1

Information on suppliers of certain frozen fish fillets ............................... II-4

Supply and demand considerations ................................................ II-5

U.S. supply ............................................................... II-5

U.S. demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10
ii

CONTENTS

Page

Part II: Conditions of competition in the U.S. market–Continued

Substitutability issues .......................................................... II-17

Factors affecting purchasing decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-20

Comparisons of the domestic products, subject imports from Vietnam, and subject

 products from third countries ................................................ II-22

Elasticity estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-27

U.S. supply elasticity ........................................................ II-27

U.S. demand elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-27

Substitution elasticity ....................................................... II-28

Part III: Condition of the U.S. industry

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Background ............................................................... III-1

Changes experienced in operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

Anticipated changes in existing operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1

U.S. processors’ capacity, production, and capacity utilization .......................... III-2

Constraints on capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2

Alternative products ........................................................ III-2

U.S. processors’ domestic shipments, company transfers, and export shipments ............ III-3

U.S. processors’ inventories .................................................... III-5

U.S. processors’ imports and purchases ............................................ III-5

U.S. processors’ employment, wages, and productivity ............................... III-5

Financial experience of the U.S. processors ........................................ III-7

Background ............................................................... III-7

Processors’ operations on frozen catfish fillets .................................... III-7

Research and development expenses, capital expenditures, assets, and return on investment III-15

Part IV: U.S. imports and the foreign industry

U.S. imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1

Leading nonsubject sources of imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

U.S. importers’ inventories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3

The industry in Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5

Basa and tra operations in Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6

Global market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-9

Supply considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-10

Demand considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-11

Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-13
iii

CONTENTS

Page

Part V: Pricing and related information

Factors affecting pricing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Raw material costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1

Tariff rates and transportation costs to the U.S. market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

U.S. inland transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-4

Exchange rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-6

Pricing practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-7

Price data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-10

Price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-20

Price comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-22

Unit sales values and quantities of U.S. frozen and fresh catfish fillets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-23

Appendixes

A. Federal Register notices and statement on adequacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

B. Hearing witnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Summary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D. Comments by U.S. producers, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers regarding the 

 effects of the orders and the likely effects of revocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Questionnaire responses of U.S. processors and purchasers discussing the effects of

 changes in prices of raw materials and other factors on domestic processors . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

F. Overview of variance calculation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Note.–Information that would reveal confidential operations of individual concerns may not be published

and therefore has been deleted from this report. Such deletions are indicated by asterisks.

 1

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

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

Investigation No. 731-TA-1012 (Review)

CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM VIETNAM

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 certain frozen fish fillets

from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the

United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.

BACKGROUND

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2008 (73 F.R. 37487) and determined on

October 6, 2008 that it would conduct a full review (73 F.R. 62318, October 20, 2008). Notice of the

scheduling of the Commission’s review and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was

given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission,

Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on January 15, 2009 (74 F.R.

2616). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2009, and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

 1

 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets, Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Final), USITC Pub. 3617 (August 2003) (“Original

Determination”) at 3.

 2

 Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, 68 Fed. Reg. 47909 (Aug. 12, 2003). 

 3

 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From Vietnam, 73 Fed. Reg. 37487 (July 1, 2008).

 4

 See Explanation of Commission Determination on Adequacy. On February 5, 2009, the Domestic Parties asked

the Commission to reconsider its adequacy determination and decision to conduct a full review because of VASEP’s

withdrawal as a party. On February 13, 2009, the Commission rejected the request for reconsideration. Letter from

the Commission (Feb. 13, 2009).

 5

 Confidential Staff Report, INV-GG-046 (June 1, 2009), as amended by INV-GG-048 (June 8, 2009) (“CR”) at

I-12, Table I-8; Public Report (“PR”) at I-10, Table I-8. Four U.S. processors ceased production during the period

examined, two U.S. processors merged to form a new company, and one processor closed several plants. CR at I-25;

PR at I-19.

 6

 CR at I-28, IV-1; PR at I-22, IV-1.

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 imports of

certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material

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

I. BACKGROUND

In August 2003, the Commission determined that an industry in the United States was materially

injured by reason of imports of certain frozen fish fillets sold at less than fair value from Vietnam.1

Commerce then issued an antidumping duty order on imports of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam

on August 12, 2003.2

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2008; the Commission received two

submissions in response to its notice of institution.3

 The first response was filed on behalf of the Catfish

Farmers of America and the following U.S. catfish processors: America’s Catch, Inc; Consolidated

Catfish Companies, LLC, dba Country Select Catfish; Delta Pride Catfish, Inc.; Alabama Catfish Inc., dba

Harvest Select Catfish, Inc.; TT&W Farm Products, Inc., dba Heartland Catfish Co.; Magnolia

Processing, Inc., dba Pride of the Pond; Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, Inc.; and Southern Pride Catfish

Co. LLC (collectively referred to as “Domestic Parties”). The second response was filed on behalf of the

Vietnam Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers (“VASEP”) and 24 participating member

companies that produce and/or export the subject merchandise.

On October 6, 2008, the Commission found the domestic interested party and respondent

interested party responses to the notice of institution to be adequate, and it determined that it would

conduct a full review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.4

 Only the

Domestic Parties, however, filed briefs with the Commission and appeared at the Commission's public

hearing.

Fourteen of 20 active U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets, accounting for 82.4 percent of U.S.

shipments in 2008, provided usable financial information.5

 The Commission received importers’

questionnaires from 11 firms regarding imports of certain frozen fish fillets; these firms accounted for ***

percent of subject imports in 2008.6

 Although only one foreign producer accounting for a very small

portion of production in Vietnam provided a questionnaire response, the Commission received export
 7

 CR at IV-10; PR at IV-7; VASEP’s response to the notice of institution at 3; and VASEP’s submission of March

9, 2009, “Introduction: About VASEP.”

 8

 CR at I-30; PR at I-23.

 9

 CR at V-13; PR at V-10.

 10 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(A).

 11 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).

 12 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 (Jul. 2003); Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bar From Turkey, Inv. No. 731-TA-745 (Review), USITC Pub.

3577 at 4 (Feb. 2003).

4

data from VASEP representing a substantial share of Vietnamese production and exports.7

 Twenty-six

purchasers of the subject imports and/or frozen catfish fillets also provided questionnaire responses.8

U.S. processors provided pricing data accounting for 43.9 percent of U.S. commercial shipments

of frozen catfish fillets, and importers provided data accounting for 27.3 percent of total subject imports

from Vietnam during the period for which the Commission requested data (2003-2008).9

II. 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.”10 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.”11 The Commission’s practice in five-year reviews is to look to the

like product definition from the original determination and any previous reviews and consider whether the

record indicates any reason to revisit that definition.12

A. Product Description

 In its expedited sunset determination, Commerce defined the subject merchandise as follows:

The product covered by this Order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip

fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species Pangasius

Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius), and Pangasius

Micronemus. Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The fillet products

covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact (“regular” fillets),

boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (“shank” fillets), boneless shank fillets cut

into strips (“fillet strips/finger”), which include fillets cut into strips, chunks, blocks,

skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are frozen whole fish

(whether or not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole

dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, cross-section

cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise will be

hereinafter referred to as frozen “basa” and “tra” fillets, which are the Vietnamese

common names for these species of fish. These products are classifiable under tariff

article codes 1604.19.4000, 1604.19.5000, 0305.59.4000, 0304.29.6033 (Frozen Fish

Fillets of the species Pangasius including basa and tra) of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). This Order covers all frozen fish fillets
 13 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Final Results of Expedited

Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 Fed. Reg. 5819-20 (Feb. 2, 2009).

 14 CR at IV-8; PR at IV-6.

 15 CR at I-21; PR at I-17.

 16 CR at I-19; PR at I-16.

 17 CR at I-19; PR at I-16.

 18 CR at IV-13; PR at IV-10.

 19 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 5.

 20 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 5.

 21 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 5. The Commission also noted that it had included catfish fillets

that were breaded and marinated in the definition of the domestic like product. The Commission found that

similarities in physical characteristics and uses, channels of distribution, production processes and employees, and

price all supported inclusion of breaded and marinated frozen fillets in the definition of the domestic like product. 

Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 6 n. 20.

 22 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 5. In the final phase of the investigation, the Commission

collected information on competition among the subject imports, domestic frozen catfish fillets, and other types of

frozen fish fillets, including tilapia. It found, however, that the additional information concerning other types of

frozen fish fillets did not indicate that including such products in the definition of the domestic like product would be

appropriate. In particular, it declined to expand the like product beyond the scope of the investigation to include

tilapia, because tilapia was not sold as a frozen product. Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 6 n. 21.

5

meeting the above specification, regardless of tariff classification. Although the HTSUS

subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of

the scope of the Order is dispositive.13

Commerce’s scope definition for the subject frozen fish fillets is essentially unchanged from its

original scope determination. “Basa” and “tra,” the common names for the species Pangasius Bocourti

and Pangasius Hypophthalmus, respectively,14 are farm-raised in cages on the Mekong River in Vietnam

and are transported downriver in cage boats to processing facilities for processing into the frozen fillets

that are the subject merchandise. They are deheaded, eviscerated, filleted, and frozen.15 A fillet is one of

two sides of a fish with head, tail, bones, and entrails removed.16 Although basa, tra, and domestic catfish

belong to different families of freshwater fish, they are all considered mild-tasting white-fleshed fish of

comparable size fillets.17 The species of catfish farm-raised in the United States, catfish of the family

Ictaluridae, is not raised in Vietnam.18

B. Analysis and Conclusion

In the original investigation, the Commission found that there was no domestic product that was

“like” the subject imports, so the Commission found a domestic like product that was “most similar” in

terms of physical characteristics and uses.19 The Commission found that the record indicated that basa, 

tra, and domestic catfish are all freshwater white fish, with similar 6-month shelf lives when frozen,

similar texture, and a neutral/mild flavor.20 Further, it found that basa, tra, and domestic catfish are all

typically individually quick frozen, packaged in 15-pound boxes, and sold in the same size increments,

primarily to the food service industry and secondarily to restaurants. As additional support, the

Commission noted that during the original investigation frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam were

widely marketed, sold, and even labeled in the United States as “catfish” under product names similar to

U.S. catfish producers’ products or that implied domestic origin.21 For these reasons, the Commission

concluded that frozen catfish fillets were the product most similar to the subject imports of frozen basa

and tra fillets.22 
 23 Domestic Parties’ Prehearing Brief at 8.

 24 Purchasers indicated that tilapia is considered a substitute for frozen fish fillets. CR at II-3, II-22; PR at I-2, II15. There is reportedly no U.S. production, however, of frozen tilapia fillets. See Public Hearing Transcript (“Tr.”)

at 121 (trout reported to be the only other farm-raised freshwater fish processed into frozen fillets). This is

consistent with the information obtained in the original investigation. Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at

6 n.21 (indicating tilapia is farm-raised in the United States, but not processed into frozen fillets).

 25 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. There

are no related party issues in this review. The related party provision provides that producers that are related to an

exporter or importer of subject merchandise or which are themselves importers may be excluded in appropriate

circumstances. 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(B).

 26 In the original investigation, the Commission considered whether to include catfish farmers in the domestic

industry, along with the processors, pursuant to the processed agricultural product provision. 19 U.S.C.

§1677(4)(E)(i). The Commission, however, determined that the first prong of the statute, the “continuous line of

production” test, was not satisfied because the raw agricultural product was not “substantially or completely devoted

to the production of the processed agricultural product.” 19 U.S.C. § 1677(4)(E)(ii). The Commission noted that the

legislative history indicated that the “substantially or completely” language of the statute defining a continuous line

of production should be interpreted to mean “all or almost all.” Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 8 n. 30

(citing H.R. Rep. 40, Part I, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. (1987) at 121). The Commission found that only about one-half

of the fresh raw catfish was devoted to frozen catfish fillets, with the remaining portion devoted to products such as

fresh fillets, fresh and frozen steaks, and nuggets.

 27 The information collected in this review indicates that 23 percent of the weight of the U.S. farm-raised live

catfish that processors used was processed into frozen fillets, 29 percent was processed into other products, and 48

percent was offal (unused parts of the fish that were mostly sold for use in fish meal, fertilizer, and oil). CR at I-21;

PR at I-17. Thus, less than half (or much less if the offal is considered a product) of the raw catfish is used for

frozen catfish fillets.

6

In this review, the Domestic Parties have indicated that they agree with the Commission’s

definition of the domestic like product in the original investigation.23 Moreover, 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 investigation.24 Consistent with our domestic like

product definition in the original investigation, we define the domestic like product as frozen catfish

fillets, whether plain, breaded, or marinated.

III. DOMESTIC INDUSTRY

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

{w}hole 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.”25 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. Based on our finding that the domestic like product is frozen catfish fillets, whether

breaded or marinated, we define a single domestic industry consisting of all domestic producers of the

domestic like product. 

As we did in the original investigation, we have also considered whether to include catfish

farmers in the domestic industry pursuant to the processed agricultural product provision of the statute.26

The information collected in this review again indicates that the statutory test is not satisfied.27 We do,

however, consider the relationship and interdependence of catfish farmers and processors to be an

important condition of competition, and we address this point further in our discussion of the conditions

of competition.
 28 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a).

 29 SAA at 883-84. 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.

 30 Although 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.

 31 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, Slip Op. 02-105 at 20 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 4, 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’”).

 32 For a complete statement of Commissioner Okun’s interpretation of the likely standard, see Additional Views

of Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun Concerning the “Likely” Standard in Certain Seamless Carbon and Alloy

Steel Standard, Line and Pressure Pipe From Argentina, Brazil, Germany, and Italy, Invs. Nos. 701-TA-362

(Review) and 731-TA-707 to 710 (Review) (Remand), USITC Pub. 3754 (Feb. 2005).

 33 Commissioner Lane notes that, consistent with her views in Pressure Sensitive Plastic Tape From Italy, Inv.

No. AA1921-167 (Second Review), USITC Pub. 3698 (June 2004), she does not concur with the U.S. Court of

International Trade’s interpretation of “likely,” but she will apply the Court’s standard in these reviews and all

subsequent reviews until either Congress clarifies the meaning or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

addresses this issue. 

7

IV. LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF MATERIAL INJURY IF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER ON CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM

VIETNAM WERE REVOKED

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

subject imports from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to

the domestic industry producing frozen catfish fillets within a reasonably foreseeable time.

A. Legal Standards

In five-year reviews 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.”28 The Statement of Administrative Action

accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316 (1994) (“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.”29 Thus, the likelihood standard is prospective in nature.30 The U.S. Court of

International Trade has found that “likely,” as used in the five-year review provisions of the Tariff Act,

means “probable,” and the Commission applies that standard in five-year reviews.31 32 33
 34 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5).

 35 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.

 36 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 37 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(1).

 38 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(5). Although the Commission must consider all factors, no one factor is necessarily

dispositive. SAA at 886.

 39 19 U.S.C. § 1677e(a) authorizes the Commission to “use the facts otherwise available” in reaching a

determination when (1) necessary information is not available on the record or (2) an interested party or any other

person withholds information requested by the agency, fails to provide such information in the time or in the form or

manner requested, significantly impedes a proceeding, or provides information that cannot be verified pursuant to

19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i). The verification requirements in 19 U.S.C. § 1677m(i) are applicable only to Commerce. See

Titanium Metals Corp. v. United States, 155 F. Supp. 2d 750, 765 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) (“the ITC correctly

responds that Congress has not required the Commission to conduct verification procedures for the evidence before

it, or provided a minimum standard by which to measure the thoroughness of Commission investigations.”).

 40 Commissioner Okun notes that the statute authorizes the Commission to take adverse inferences in five-year

reviews, but such authorization does not relieve the Commission of its obligation to consider the record evidence as

a whole in making its determination. See 19 U.S.C. § 1677e. She generally gives credence to the facts supplied by

the participating parties and certified by them as true, but bases her decision on the evidence as a whole, and does

not automatically accept participating parties’ suggested interpretations of the record evidence. Regardless of the

level of participation, the Commission is obligated to consider all evidence relating to each of the statutory factors

and may not draw adverse inferences that render such analysis superfluous. “In general, the Commission makes

determinations by weighing all of the available evidence regarding a multiplicity of factors relating to the domestic

industry as a whole and by drawing reasonable inferences from the evidence it finds most persuasive.” SAA at 869.

8

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.”34 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.”35

Although the standard in a five-year review is not the same as the standard applied in original

antidumping and countervailing duty investigations, 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.”36 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 order is

revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and any findings by Commerce regarding duty

absorption pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1675(a)(4).37 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.38

Because we have limited information concerning the Vietnamese basa/tra industry, we have relied

on the facts otherwise available when appropriate in this review, which consist primarily of information

from the original investigation, information submitted in this five-year review (which includes export data

from VASEP), and information available from published sources.39 40
 41 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 42 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 10.

 43 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 11.

 44 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 11.

 45 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 11.

 46 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 11.

 47 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 11.

 48 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 11.

 49 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 12.

9

B. Conditions of Competition and the Business Cycle

In evaluating the likely impact of the subject imports on the domestic industry, 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.”41

1. Original Investigation

In the original investigation, which covered the full years 2000-2002 and interim period JanuaryMarch 2003, the Commission found the following conditions of competition relevant to its material injury

analysis.

The Commission noted that demand for frozen fillets of catfish, basa, and tra had expanded

greatly and this long-term trend had continued during the period examined. Subject imports were largely

absent from the U.S. market prior to 1999, but were an increasingly significant source of supply.

Nonsubject sources were consistently less than one percent of apparent U.S. consumption.42

The Commission found that, although they were not identical, basa, tra, and catfish generally

were similar in appearance, texture, and taste when processed into fillets. Domestic catfish fillets and the

subject imports were in the two- to nine-ounce range and were sold frozen in 15-pound boxes.43

Individual importers and domestic producers reported that the subject imports and the domestic like

product were used interchangeably. In addition, many purchasers reported that the domestic like product

and the subject imports were substitutable.44

The Commission found that frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam were marketed and sold in

the United States as “catfish,” and even labeled as such, until legislation curbed, but did not eliminate,

this practice.45 The domestic producers and catfish farmers had campaigned at the state and federal levels

for changes in the labeling requirements for catfish in order to ensure that basa and tra from Vietnam were

not labeled as catfish. The Commission noted that section 755 of the Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2002 provided that

effective November 28, 2001, “[n]one of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act

to the Food and Drug Administration shall be used to allow admission of fish or fish products labeled

wholly or in part as ‘catfish’ unless the products are taxonomically from the family Ictaluridae.”46 The

labeling law was subsequently broadened to encompass all marketing and sales of other fish as catfish. 

State labeling laws also were enacted in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.47

The Commission concluded that the marketing of frozen fillets of basa and tra had changed to

some extent as a result of the labeling law, but the record indicated that the subject imports and the

domestic product still competed because consumers viewed basa and tra as comparable to domestic

catfish fillets.48 Further, the Commission found that frozen catfish fillets and basa and tra fillets competed

for sales at the same accounts and that large purchasers switched from domestic catfish to the subject

imports.49 The Commission observed that even if the labeling laws addressed marketing practices, they

did not reverse the commercial ties that existed in a market that responded to price.
 50 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 12.

 51 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 12.

 52 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 10.

 53 CR at II-3; PR at II-2.

 54 CR at II-22; PR at II-15.

 55 CR at II-22; PR at II-15.

 56 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 57 CR at II-20; PR at II-15.

 58 CR at II-19; PR at II-13. Firms expecting increased demand cited reasons that included the concern that wild

whitefish may not be sustainable, the continuing growth of aquaculture throughout the world, healthier eating habits,

better food safety, and the maturing of the Baby Boom generation. CR at II-20; PR at II-14.

 59 CR at II-16; PR at II-10.

10

The Commission also found that a substantial share of subject imports were sold in the South, the

principal market for the domestic product. The record indicated that frozen catfish fillets were primarily

consumed in restaurants that feature southern fare.50 Subject imports and domestic frozen catfish fillets

were also competing in the same channels of distribution, as 62 percent of domestic frozen catfish fillets

were sold to food service distributors, while *** percent of importers’ shipments were destined for food

service distributors.51

The Commission found that U.S. processors were able to lower their costs to some extent by

paying the farmers lower prices for catfish, but several of the processors were owned by catfish farms,

thereby limiting the extent to which lower revenue from depressed prices could be passed down to the

farmers.52

2. Current Review

The current five-year review covers the period 2003 through 2008. We have considered a

number of conditions of competition in the U.S. market that inform our analysis of the likely impact on

the domestic industry if the antidumping duty order were revoked.

a. Demand Characteristics

Demand for certain frozen fish fillets is driven largely by consumer preferences. Frozen fillets of

other whitefish may be both substitutes for and complements to certain frozen fish fillets (they are

complements as there is some consumer preference for variety).53 Tilapia, cod, and pollock are all

reported to be substitutes for certain frozen fish fillets, as they are mild-tasting whitefish fillets.54

Processors and purchasers indicated that tilapia, especially from China, is low-priced and competes

aggressively for sales to food service companies.55

Demand was strong in the U.S. market for certain frozen fish fillets during the period examined. 

Apparent U.S. consumption increased irregularly, from 161 million pounds in 2003 to 212 million pounds

in 2008, representing an increase of more than 30 percent.56 With regard to historical demand for certain

frozen fish fillets, firms that indicated increased demand cited a number of reasons, including the desire

for healthier food, an increase in availability, affordability, and the mild taste of the product.57 The

outlook for future demand is reportedly strong as well, with the great majority of purchasers, processors

and importers anticipating increased demand or no change in demand.58 Demand exhibits some seasonal

variation; demand is high during the Lenten pre-Easter season and low during the holiday months of

November and December.59
 60 See Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 11. As discussed above, the Farm Security and Rural

Investment Act of 2002 included a provision that limits the use of the name “catfish” in food product labeling to fish

of the Ictaluridae family, which is the species of catfish raised in the United States. In addition, the 2002 farm bill

included catfish in country-of-origin (“COOL”) labeling requirements that apply to retail sales, but specifically

exempted restaurants. Six states have laws regarding catfish labeling, but only Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana

have laws that regulate the use of the term “catfish” on restaurant menus. CR at II-3 to II-4 n.10; PR at II-3, II-3

n.10. See also Domestic Parties’ Prehearing Brief at Exh. 8.

 61 CR at II-23; PR at II-16.

 62 CR at II-26; PR at II-18.

 63 CR at I-22; PR at I-18. See also Tr. at 20, 25-26 (Rhodes, Walker).

 64 CR at I-22; PR at I-18.

 65 CR at II-26; PR at II-18.

 66 CR at I-25; PR at I-19.

 67 CR at III-27 n.30, III-32 n.53; PR at III-13 n.30, III-15 n.53.

 68 CR at I-25; PR at I-19.

 69 CR/PR at Table III-10.

11

The level of substitutability between frozen catfish fillets and frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam may have decreased somewhat in the U.S. market as a result of the stricter labeling requirements

at the federal and state levels noted by the Commission in the original investigation.60 Twenty of 26

responding purchasers indicated that the subject imports and frozen catfish fillets are not substitutable,

although most cited laws requiring accurate labeling and identification of the products rather than

differences in physical characteristics or market positioning.61 State labeling laws and community

pressure in catfish producing regions may deter the substitution of the subject imports for catfish in those

locations. Moreover, 15 of the 26 responding purchasers indicated that buying the domestic product

rather than imports is important.62

On the other hand, distributors, sellers, and restaurant owners still appear to be marketing the

subject imports as a substitute for catfish in oral communications, price lists, and menus.63 Basa and tra

reportedly are sold to customers in restaurants in generic terms such as “southern fried fish.”64 We note

also that the market share of subject imports increased during the period of review while the market share

of domestic catfish declined. Given the record as a whole, including the similarities in physical

characteristics of the products, and the contrasting trends in market share, there appears to be at least

moderate substitutability between domestic frozen catfish fillets and frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam.65

b. Supply Characteristics

Despite the growth in apparent U.S. consumption during the period examined, the U.S. industry

has contracted as processors have consolidated or gone out of business. Four domestic catfish processors

(Aquafarms, Arkansas Catfish Growers LLC dba SEACAT, Prairie Lands, and Pride of the South Catfish

Company) have ceased operations, and one other domestic processor, Southern Pride Catfish Co. LLC,

has closed several plants.66

There is a high degree of interdependence between U.S. processors and catfish farmers, and most

U.S. processors are farmer-owned. U.S. processors report that being vertically integrated helps ensure a

consistent supply of live catfish.67 Only two responding firms reported that all of their live catfish

purchases were from unrelated farms.68 Because one of these firms was a major processor of live catfish,

over half of U.S. processors’ purchases of live catfish were from unrelated farmers.69
 70 CR at V-2 to V-3; PR at V-2 to V-3. Feed costs typically account for *** percent of catfish farmers’

production costs. CR at V-3 n.7; PR at V-2 n.7.

 71 CR at V-3 to V-4; PR at V-2 to V-3.

 72 CR at II-9, Fig. II-1; PR at II-6, Fig. II-1.

 73 Processors’ average cost to obtain live fish rose from $1.38 per pound in 2003 to $1.94 per pound in 2008. 

CR/PR at Table III-8.

 74 CR at II-8; PR at II-5.

 75 CR at II-3 n.6, II-5 to II-6; PR at II-2 n.6, II-4.

 76 Ten food service distributors accounted for 74.5 percent of the quantity of total purchases of certain frozen fish

fillets reported during the period examined, and 5 restaurant chains accounted for 12.1 percent of the quantity

reported. One food service company, ***, alone accounted for approximately *** of all purchases during the period. 

CR at I-30; PR at I-23.

 77 CR at I-30 n.63; PR at I-23 n.63.

 78 CR at V-9; PR at V-7.

 79 CR at IV-13; PR at IV-10. In 2008, three-quarters of U.S. imports of certain frozen fish fillets from China

consisted of catfish, with the remaining one-quarter consisting of basa and tra. CR at IV-5; PR at IV-3.

 80 CR/PR at Table IV-1. In referring to nonsubject imports, we use the term “certain frozen fish fillets” to refer to

the subject merchandise as well as frozen fillets of catfish.

 81 CR/PR at Tables I-11 and IV-1.

12

U.S. processors faced increasing purchase prices for catfish during the period examined, as U.S.

catfish farmers’ feed costs increased due to higher prices for corn and soybeans.70 Moreover, some

catfish farmers have not been able to increase the selling price of their live catfish sufficiently to cover

their increased costs and, as a result, have reduced operations or stopped raising live catfish.71 Total

acreage dedicated to ponds for raising catfish fell steadily during the period of review, and it has declined

by over 25 percent since its peak in 2002.72 Thus, the supply of live farm-raised catfish available to U.S.

processors consistently fell during the period examined. The reduced supply of live fish creates cost-side

pressures for processors due to the higher prices they must pay for the fish.73 Supply also tends to be

lower during the summer months when the number of food-size fish in the ponds is lower and feeding is

the heaviest.74 Although the domestic product has a six-month shelf life, food service companies tend to

concentrate their purchases during periods of peak supply.75

U.S. processors and importers sell to food service distributors, grocery chains, warehouse clubs,

and directly to restaurants.76 Food service distributors in turn generally sell to restaurants, where

consumers purchase the vast majority of certain frozen fish fillets. Food service distributors also reported

selling to hotels, school systems, healthcare facilities, nursing homes, the military, and casinos.77 Most

U.S. sales of the domestic product and the subject merchandise are made on a spot basis, with some sales

arranged on a short-term basis either by contract or oral agreement.78

A major change in the conditions of competition since the original investigation is the growth in

nonsubject imports, and in particular frozen catfish fillets from China. The same species of catfish that is

farm-raised in the United States is now being farm-raised in China.79 Since the imposition of the

antidumping duty order, China has become the second largest source of imports of certain frozen fish

fillets, including catfish, basa, and tra.80 Nonsubject imports from China accounted for over one-quarter

of total imports of certain frozen fish fillets by quantity, but only 13 percent of apparent U.S.

consumption.81
 82 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 83 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(2).

 84 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 13.

 85 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 14.

 86 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 14.

 87 CR/PR at Table IV-1.

 88 CR/PR at Table I-1.

 89 CR/PR at Table I-11. In contrast, the domestic industry lost 10.6 percentage points of market share from 2000

to 2002. See CR/PR at Table I-1.

 90 CR/PR at Table I-11.

13

C. Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Subject Imports Is Likely to Lead to

Continuation or Recurrence of Material Injury

1. Likely Volume of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely volume of imports of subject merchandise if the order under review is

revoked, 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.82 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 country,

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

products.83

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the quantity of subject imports rose from

12.5 million pounds in 2000 to 26.0 million pounds in 2001 and 36.0 million pounds in 2002, an increase

of 187.4 percent from 2000 to 2002.84 The Commission noted that although apparent U.S. consumption

grew between 2000 and 2002, the volume of subject imports grew significantly faster and captured an

increasing share of the U.S. market. Moreover, the Commission found that the subject imports’ increase

in market share came largely at the expense of the domestic industry, as nonsubject import volumes were

insignificant throughout the period. Subject imports increased relative to domestic production as well;

they were equivalent to 11.6 percent of domestic production in 2000 but rose to 33.2 percent by 2002.85

The Commission concluded that the increased volumes of subject imports were significant both in

absolute terms and relative to production and apparent consumption in the United States.86

During the period examined in this review, subject imports maintained a growing and significant

presence in the U.S. market, even with the order in place. Subject imports increased from 19.7 million

pounds in 2003 to 53.3 million pounds in 2008, an increase of 171 percent.87 By quantity, subject imports

increased their U.S. market share from 12.2 percent in 2003 to 25.1 percent in 2008.88

The domestic industry lost more market share during the period examined than it did in the

original investigation; its market share fell from 87.1 percent in 2003 to 54.1 percent in 2008.89 With the

order in place, nonsubject imports gained an even greater portion of the domestic industry’s lost market

share than the subject imports, increasing from 0.7 percent in 2003 to 20.8 percent in 2008, but continued

to hold a smaller share of the U.S. market than subject imports.90

In assessing the likely volume of subject imports if the order is revoked, we consider whether the

subject producers’ planned additions to capacity or existing unused production capacity would likely be a

significant source of increased exports to the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. We also

consider whether subject exporters are likely to shift exports away from existing markets to the United

States.
 91 CR at IV-10; PR at IV-7. A questionnaire response was received from one producer in Vietnam, ***.

 92 See CR/PR at Tables IV-4 and IV-5.

 93 CR/PR at Table IV-4. Vietnamese production of whole basa and tra has increased from 359 million pounds in

2003 to 1.9 billion pounds in 2007. Id.

 94 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at Table VII-1.

 95 While the Vietnamese industry’s total capacity is unknown, we note that, based on 2008 export figures from

Vietnam, 14.5 percent of those exports, or 205 million pounds, would have been equivalent to 97 percent of apparent

U.S. consumption for that year. See CR/PR at Tables I-1 and IV-5.

 96 CR at IV-9; PR at IV-7.

 97 See CR/PR at Table I-1.

 98 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at VII-1.

 99 See CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 100 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 101 See CR/PR at Table IV-5. For comparison’s sake, based on USDA data, the U.S. industry’s total shipments in

2008 were 115 million pounds. CR/PR at Table I-1.

 102 CR at IV-10; PR at IV-7 to IV-8. It appears that one of the Vietnamese industry’s main export markets is

becoming less favorable to exports of the subject merchandise. In December 2008, Russia banned all basa and tra

imports from Vietnam following the discovery of some contaminated products. Although the ban was recently

partially lifted, only 10 Vietnamese processing plants are currently authorized to export to Russia. There are

reportedly 80 processors in the Mekong delta region of Vietnam. CR at IV-9, IV-12; PR at IV-7, IV-9. The Russian

(continued...)

14

Information concerning the basa and tra industry in Vietnam is limited due to the failure of the

Vietnamese industry to respond to Commission questionnaires. As noted above, only one producer in

Vietnam submitted a questionnaire response in this review.91 VASEP, however, provided information

concerning its members’ production and exports of the subject merchandise.92 That information indicates

that the industry in Vietnam is much larger than it was at the time of the original investigation and

remains export-oriented. Production of basa and tra in Vietnam was reported to be over six times greater

in 2007 than it was in 2002.93

The record also indicates that there is significant excess capacity in Vietnam for the production of

the subject merchandise. During 2002, the final year of the original investigation, the Vietnamese

industry had excess capacity equivalent to 14.5 percent of its total capacity.94 Given the greatly increased

capacity of the Vietnamese industry since imposition of the order, we find that it likely still has

significant excess capacity that could be the source of increased exports to the United States should the

order be revoked.95

The industry in Vietnam plans to grow even larger. Four Vietnamese processing plants have

announced capacity expansion plans in 2009 totaling 656 million pounds.96 These significant additions to

capacity would, in and of themselves, be more than triple the size of apparent U.S. consumption in 2008,

and we determine that, given the export orientation of the Vietnamese industry, Vietnam is likely to be a

source of significantly increased exports to the United States in the reasonably foreseeable future.97

While the record does not contain updated information as to the amount of basa and tra sold in

the Vietnamese home market, during the original investigation, the Vietnamese industry exported

84 percent of its production.98 The Vietnamese industry remains export-oriented, as demonstrated by its

surging exports.99 Data on the Vietnamese industry’s exports demonstrate the remarkable, export-based

growth of the Vietnamese basa/tra industry.100 Although total Vietnamese exports of basa and tra were

73 million pounds in 2003, exports surged to 1.4 billion pounds in 2008, an increase of over 18-fold

during the period examined.101

This rapid increase in exports, destined for the European Union and other markets such as

Australia, Russia, and Ukraine, indicates a likely increase in shipments to the United States should the

order be revoked. The European Union was the largest export market for Vietnamese basa and tra during

2004-07, but Russia and Ukraine have recently become the largest export markets.102 The Vietnamese
 102 (...continued)

Government’s actions therefore make it likely that the subject exporters will seek to shift their exports to other

markets.

 103 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 104 CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 105 CR/PR at Table IV-5. See also Domestic Parties’ Posthearing Brief at Exh.13.

 106 We have also considered inventories of the subject merchandise and the potential for product-shifting. 

Importers’ inventories of subject imports were relatively steady at a low level relative to apparent U.S. consumption

in the last two years of the period examined, and they are not likely to be a significant source of subject imports. 

CR/PR at Table IV-3. There is no indication that Vietnamese processors can shift from the processing of other fish

to basa and tra production. 

 107 See CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 108 In 2006, the Department of Commerce found that two related Vietnamese firms circumvented the antidumping

order by importing whole, live basa and tra into Cambodia and processing them into frozen fish fillets for export to

the United States. CR at I-3; PR at I-2. Furthermore, basa and tra from Vietnam has been mislabeled as other

species of fish in order to avoid paying antidumping duties. Prosecutions of this activity have resulted in

imprisonment and fines. CR at I-3; PR at I-2.

 109 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

(continued...)

15

industry increased its exports to the European Union from 272 million pounds in 2006 to 495 million

pounds in 2008.103 The Vietnamese industry also rapidly increased its exports to other markets, including

Australia, Russia, and Ukraine, from 205 million pounds in 2006 to 749 million pounds in 2008.104 The

increase was accompanied by declining unit values for the merchandise shipped, indicating a desire to

increase exports even in the face of lower prices.105 Given the ease and speed with which the Vietnamese

industry has expanded its exports, the United States would likely be a market to which the Vietnamese

industry would increase exports significantly upon revocation of the order.106

The record indicates that the Vietnamese industry continues to be interested in the U.S. market. 

The subject imports maintained a significant and growing U.S. presence throughout the period examined,

even with the antidumping duty order in place. In addition, the unit values of the Vietnamese exporters’

shipments of frozen fish fillets to the United States are higher than those of their shipments to other

markets such as the European Union, suggesting that market prices in the United States are relatively

attractive.107 Therefore, the Vietnamese industry has an incentive to shift exports from third countries to

the United States. The fact that the Commerce Department has found that exporters have circumvented

the antidumping duty order by shipping through third countries and mislabeling the subject merchandise

as other species of fish further demonstrates the attractiveness of the U.S. market.108

 We find that the Vietnamese industry has significant excess capacity, significant planned

additions to its capacity, and a large volume of current production that can be shifted to the United States.

The record also indicates that the U.S. market is attractive to Vietnamese exporters and that the

Vietnamese industry has a pattern of rapidly increasing its exports at ever lower prices. We therefore

conclude that the likely volume of subject imports, both in absolute terms and relative to production and

consumption in the United States, would be significant if the antidumping duty order is revoked.

2. Likely Price Effects of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely price effects of subject imports if the order under review were revoked,

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.109
 109 (...continued)

on circumstantial, as well as direct, evidence of the adverse effects of unfairly traded imports on domestic prices.” 

SAA at 886.

 110 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 14.

 111 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 14.

 112 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 15.

 113 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 15.

 114 U.S. processors and importers generally reported that the subject imports and the domestic product are always

or frequently interchangeable, while purchasers reported that they are never or sometimes interchangeable. CR/PR

at Table II-3a. However, *** provided somewhat contradictory responses. Although they both reported that the

U.S. and subject frozen fish fillets were, at best, sometimes interchangeable, *** indicated that the physical

characteristics of basa and tra lend themselves to be substituted for catfish, and *** indicated that there was no

restriction against substituting catfish for basa and tra. Id. at n.1.

 115 CR/PR at Table II-2. All 25 purchasers indicated that price is either “very important” or “somewhat

important.” Id.

 116 The pricing products were two to three ounce frozen fillets (Product 1), three to five ounce frozen fillets

(Product 2), five to seven ounce frozen fillets (Product 3), and seven to nine ounce frozen fillets (Product 4), all

packed in 15 to 22 pound boxes. CR at V-13; PR at V-10.

 117 CR at V-13; PR at V-10.

 118 CR/PR at Table V-6.

 119 Compare CR/PR at Table V-6 with Table V-7.

 120 CR at V-24; PR at V-10; CR/PR at Figs. V-4, V-5, V-6, V-7.

 121 CR at V-24; PR at V-20; CR/PR at Figs. V-4, V-5, V-6, V-7.

16

In the original investigation, the Commission found that the domestic like product and subject

imports were interchangeable and were used in the same applications and that many purchasers

considered basa and tra and the domestic product to be substitutable.110 Moreover, basa and tra competed

with catfish for sales not only in the same U.S. regions and through the same channels of distribution, but

at the same customer accounts.111

The Commission found that subject imports of basa and tra undersold the domestic product in all

139 monthly price comparisons, by margins ranging from 9.2 percent to 38.6 percent, and concluded that

the underselling was significant.112

The Commission also found that significant price depression occurred during the period

examined. Despite increasing demand, average prices for the domestic like product declined from a high

of $2.88 per pound in March and April 2000 to a low of $2.37 per pound in March and April 2002, before

stabilizing at significantly lower levels.113

The evidence in this review indicates, as it did in the original investigation, that once acceptable

levels of quality are met, the domestic like product and subject imports can be used interchangeably114 and

that price is an important factor in purchasing decisions.115

The pricing information on the record indicates that the subject imports are still consistently

underselling domestic product even with the order in place. The Commission collected pricing data on

the same four pricing products that were used in the original investigation.116 These products accounted

for 43.9 percent of U.S. shipments and 27.3 percent of subject imports between 2003 and 2008.117 The

data indicate that, despite the discipline of the order, the subject imports undersold the domestic like

product in all 74 comparisons at margins of underselling that ranged from 17.5 to 50.7 percent.118 Thus,

under the antidumping duty order the margins of underselling were greater than during the original

investigation.119

Quarterly prices for domestic frozen catfish fillets fluctuated, but generally increased from 2003

to 2008.120 Quarterly prices for the subject imports also fluctuated and increased over the 2003 to 2008

period, but generally decreased from their peak prices in 2006 through the last quarter of 2008.121
 122 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 123 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 124 CR/PR at Table C-1. Production declined from 106.6 million pounds in 2003 to 97.1 million pounds in 2008. 

CR/PR at Table C-1. Thus, the increase in costs was also spread over a reduced production over the course of the

period.

 125 CR at III-24; PR at III-12; CR/PR at Table III-8. The ratio of cost of goods sold to the value of net sales

generally rose during the period, except for 2008 when this ratio declined slightly. See CR/PR at Table I-1.

 126 CR at V-1; PR at V-1.

 127 See CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 128 See CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 129 The majority of Vietnamese exports are shipped to markets at unit values that are only 62 percent of the unit

values for export shipments to the United States. See CR/PR at Table IV-5.

 130 Commerce made an affirmative finding of duty absorption with respect to one Vietnamese exporter and its

U.S. affiliate. CR at I-13 n.20; PR at I-10 n.20; Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam:

Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 Fed. Reg. 11349

(March 17, 2009). The SAA, at 886, indicates that duty absorption “may indicate that the producer or exporter

(continued...)

17

We have also considered whether subject imports from Vietnam suppressed prices of the

domestic like product to a significant degree. As explained above, the cost of live catfish increased

substantially over the period. Although prices also increased, they were not sufficient to cover this

increasing cost. The domestic industry’s average unit cost of goods sold (“COGS”) increased from $2.02

in 2003 to $2.59 in 2008, an increase of $0.57.122 The domestic industry’s average unit sales value

increased from $2.41 in 2003 to $2.91 in 2008, an increase of $0.50.123 Consequently, the industry

experienced a cost-price squeeze through 2008 as is also shown by trends in the ratio of COGS to net

sales, which increased overall from 83.7 percent in 2003 to 90.4 percent in 2007, before declining slightly

to 89.0 percent in 2008.124 Significantly, these trends occurred while apparent U.S. consumption

increased by 31.4 percent from 2003 to 2008. In light of such strong demand, the domestic industry

should have been able to pass these cost increases to purchasers by way of higher prices, but was unable

to do so.

Although domestic producers were able to increase their prices somewhat during the period to

offset their increasing cost of goods sold, which was primarily attributable to the rising prices for live

catfish, their net sales values did not keep pace with rising unit costs, leading to lower profit margins for

the domestic producers.125 Given that raw material costs account for approximately 72 percent of the cost

of production, it was difficult for processors to lower their costs in order to compete with low-priced

imports.126 If the order were revoked and domestic producers were forced to compete against greater

volumes of low-priced imports from Vietnam, it would be even more difficult for the domestic producers

to raise prices to cover their increasing costs, which would likely lead to even greater price suppressing

effects.

We find that the subject exporters are likely to price their product even more aggressively if the

order is revoked in order to export large volumes of subject merchandise to the United States and increase

their share of the U.S. market. Frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam have competed aggressively at

low prices in order to sell large volumes in Europe and other markets. The unit values of the Vietnamese

exporters’ shipments of the subject merchandise fell in the European Union and other markets such as

Australia, Russia, and Ukraine as the subject exporters substantially increased their exports to those

markets.127 In contrast, with the antidumping duty order in effect, the unit values of the subject exporters’

shipments to the United States increased.128 Absent the antidumping duty order, the subject exporters are

likely to price their product lower, as they have in their other export markets, in order to increase their

market share in the United States.129 The experience of Vietnamese exporters in other markets and their

consistent underselling in the U.S. market during the period examined, even under the discipline of the

order, indicate that underselling is likely to be significant if the order is revoked.130
 130 (...continued)

would be able to market more aggressively should the order be revoked as a result of a sunset review.”

 131 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4).

 132 19 U.S.C. § 1675a(a)(4). Section 752(a)(6) of the Tariff Act states that “the Commission may consider the

magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy” 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 determination in its review of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam and found that

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

following margins: An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (47.05 percent); Vinh Hoan

Company Limited (36.84 percent), Nam Viet Company Limited (53.68 percent); Can Tho Agricultural and Animal

Products Import Export Company (45.81 percent); An Giang Agriculture and Food Import Export Company, Can

Tho Animal Fishery Products Processing Export Enterprise, Da Nang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation,

Mekongfish Company, QVD Food Company Limited, Viet Hai Seafood Company Limited, and Vinh Long

Import-Export Company (45.55 percent); and all others (63.88 percent). Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 74

Fed. Reg. 5819-20 (Feb. 2, 2009).

 133 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.

 134 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 17.

 135 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 18.

18

In light of the above, were the antidumping duty order revoked, we find that significantly larger

quantities of low-priced subject imports would likely be priced aggressively in order to gain market share. 

This underselling likely would significantly suppress and/or depress U.S. prices for frozen catfish fillets. 

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that subject imports from Vietnam are likely to have significant

adverse price effects in the event that the order is revoked.

3. Likely Impact of Subject Imports

In evaluating the likely impact of imports of subject merchandise if the order is revoked, 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.131 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.132 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 at issue and whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the order were revoked.133

In the original investigation, the Commission noted that the domestic industry expanded its

capacity between 2000 and 2002, but by an amount that was less than the increase in apparent U.S.

consumption.134 The Commission found that as the volume of subject imports increased significantly

during this period, the domestic industry’s capacity utilization decreased by 8.1 percentage points.135
 136 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 18.

 137 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 19.

 138 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 19.

 139 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 19.

 140 Original Determination, USITC Pub. 3617 at 19.

 141 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 142 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 143 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 144 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 145 CR/PR at Table C-1. The domestic industry’s inventories also increased during the period, from 7.5 million

pounds in 2003 to 11.8 million pounds in 2008. Id.

 146 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 147 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 148 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 149 CR/PR at Table III-7.

 150 CR/PR at Table C-1.

19

The Commission also observed that the domestic industry’s sales, like its output, were

significantly constrained despite the growth in demand. Due to the significant growth in subject import

volume, the domestic industry’s share of the U.S. market declined by 10.6 percentage points from 2000 to

2002 despite increased shipments by U.S. processors.136

Notwithstanding a 24.1 percent growth in apparent U.S. consumption from 2000 to 2002, the

domestic industry’s profitability declined.137 By 2002, the domestic industry was unable to lower costs

sufficiently to compensate for declining prices.138 The domestic industry’s operating income as a ratio to

net sales was 2.3 percent in 2000, 2.6 percent in 2001, and just 0.1 percent in 2002.139 The domestic

industry’s employment levels also decreased between 2000 and 2002.140 Based on significant declines in

many of the performance indicators of the domestic industry, the Commission found that the increasing

volumes of subject imports had a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry.

During the period examined in this review, the great majority of the domestic industry’s

performance indicators declined despite relatively strong demand for certain frozen fish fillets. The

industry’s capacity declined by over 6.1 percent, falling from 146 million pounds in 2003 to 137 million

pounds in 2008,141 and its production fell by 8.9 percent, dropping from 107 million pounds in 2003 to

97 million pounds in 2008.142 The domestic industry’s capacity utilization fell from 73.0 percent in 2003

to 70.8 percent in 2008.143 Its market share also declined by 33.0 percentage points, from 87.1 percent in

2003 to 54.1 percent in 2008.144 U.S. shipments of the domestic like product increased from 2003 to

2006, rising from 106 million pounds in 2003 to 116 million pounds in 2006, only to decline to 96 million

pounds in 2007 and 95 million pounds in 2008.145 The value of the domestic industry’s sales, however,

increased from $258.9 million in 2003 to $289.0 million in 2008 as domestic prices increased.146

The domestic industry’s employment-related indicators also declined. The industry’s production

and related workers (PRWs) and hours worked fluctuated, but decreased overall during the period

examined.147 The number of workers declined from 2,612 in 2003 to 2,589 in 2008;148 the number of

PRW hours worked dropped from 5,338 in 2003 to 4,684 in 2008.149 Worker productivity, however,

increased slightly from 20.0 pounds per hour in 2003 to 20.7 pounds per hour in 2008.150
 151 See CR/PR at Table III-8.

 152 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 153 CR/PR at Table III-8.

 154 CR/PR at Table C-1. 

 155 CR/PR at Table C-1.

 156 CR at V-2 to V-3; PR at V-2 to V-3.

 157 CR/PR at Table I-11.

 158 See CR/PR at Table IV-2.

 159 CR at IV-13; PR at IV-10.

 160 CR at IV-5; PR at IV-3.

 161 CR/PR at Table IV-1. For instance, in 2008, the AUVs of nonsubject imports were $1.76 per pound compared

to $1.47 per pound for subject imports. CR/PR at Tables IV-1 and IV-2.

20

The domestic industry’s profitability also suffered during the period.151 The industry reported its

greatest operating income of $16.1 million in 2003, the first year of the period examined. In 2007 and

2008, the industry reported operating income of just $574,000 and $3.6 million, respectively.152 The

majority of the domestic producers reported losses in those two years.153 The domestic industry’s

operating income as a ratio to net sales was 6.2 percent in 2003, 3.0 percent in 2004, 3.1 percent in 2005,

3.0 percent in 2006, 0.2 percent in 2007, and 1.2 percent in 2008.154 The industry’s capital expenditures

fell during the period examined as well, from $5.3 million in 2003 to $2.2 million in 2008.155

The domestic industry’s financial and trade indicators reflect a shrinking and less profitable

industry. Raw material costs increased during the period examined, as the industry’s primary input, live

catfish, increased in price due to higher feed costs.156 The industry had difficulty reducing its costs

because raw materials are such a large cost component. Further, despite the antidumping duty order, the

industry’s ability to raise its prices was constrained due to price pressure from increasing volumes of lowpriced subject imports.

Catfish farmers are reducing their catfish production due to low prices for catfish relative to

production costs. This reduces the supply of live catfish available to processors. This trend is likely to

continue in the foreseeable future because it is unprofitable for U.S. processors to pay more for live

catfish. Given the decline in the industry’s financial and trade indicators as well as the other difficulties

facing the industry, we find that the industry is vulnerable to the effects of the subject imports if the order

were to be revoked.

We also have considered the growing presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market. The

United States is an attractive market for imports. Nonsubject imports increased to 20.8 percent of

apparent U.S. consumption in 2008.157 China is by far the largest source of nonsubject imports.158 The

Chinese industry is not, however, currently focused on export-led growth as is the Vietnamese industry. 

Less than 5 percent of Chinese aquaculture production is exported.159 Moreover, the Chinese catfish

industry produced 265 million pounds of catfish in 2006 and, therefore, is significantly smaller than the

1.9 billion pound Vietnamese industry.160 We also note that the average unit values (“AUVs”) of

nonsubject imports were substantially higher than the AUVs for subject imports during all years of the

period examined, indicating that subject imports would likely be priced more aggressively than

nonsubject imports if the order were revoked.161 Thus, we find that subject imports are likely to have a

significant adverse impact upon the domestic industry if the order were revoked, notwithstanding the

growing presence of nonsubject imports in the U.S. market.

 As noted above, the volume of subject imports is likely to be significant if the order were

revoked. Subject imports increased even with the order in place, and subject producers possess

substantial excess capacity, plan further additions to capacity, and are highly export-oriented. Subject

imports undersold the domestic industry during the period examined, and underselling is likely to

continue in the future in order to increase market share. Given that subject imports and the domestic like
21

product are moderately substitutable, we find that, in the event of revocation, low-priced subject imports

would likely increase in absolute terms and would gain market share at the expense of the domestic

industry, would undersell significantly the domestic like product, and would depress and/or suppress

prices for the domestic like product. Accordingly, we find that revocation of the order would likely have

a significant adverse impact on the domestic industry with respect to the industry’s production,

shipments, sales, market share, employment, and profits.

CONCLUSION

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

subject imports from Vietnam would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to

the domestic industry within a reasonably foreseeable time.
 
 1

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

 2

 73 FR 37487, July 1, 2008. All interested parties were requested to respond to this notice by submitting the

information requested by the Commission. 

 3

 In accordance with section 751(c) of the Act, the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) published a

notice of initiation of a five-year review of the subject antidumping duty order concurrently with the Commission’s

notice of institution. 73 FR 37411, July 1, 2008. 

 4

 73 FR 62318, October 20, 2008. The Commission found that the domestic interested party group response to its

notice of institution was adequate, as was the respondent interested party group response. 

 5

 The Commission’s notice of institution, notice of its decision to conduct a full review, scheduling notice, and

statement on adequacy appear in app. A and may also be found at the Commission’s web site (Internet address

www.usitc.gov). Commissioners’ votes on whether to conduct an expedited or full review may also be found at the

web site. 

I-1

PART I: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

BACKGROUND

On July 1, 2008, 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 certain frozen fish fillets 

from Vietnam would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of material injury to a domestic 

industry.2 3

 On October 6, 2008, the Commission determined that it would conduct a full review pursuant

to section 751(c)(5) of the Act.4

 Selected information relating to the schedule of the five-year review

appears in the following tabulation:5

Effective date Action

August 12, 2003

Commerce’s antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam (68

FR 47909)

July 1, 2008 Commission’s institution of a five-year review (73 FR 37487)

July 1, 2008 Commerce’s initiation of a five-year review (73 FR 37411)

October 6, 2008

Commission’s determination to conduct a full five-year review (73 FR 62318;

October 20, 2008)

January 9, 2009 Commission’s scheduling of the review (74 FR 2616; January 15, 2009)

February 2, 2009 Commerce’s final results of the expedited review (74 FR 5819)

May 6, 2009 Commission’s hearing

June 15, 2009 Commission’s vote

June 26, 2009 Commission’s determination transmitted to Commerce 

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.
 6

 Commerce’s final determination, 68 FR 37116, June 23, 2003. Commerce issued an amended final

determination in July 2003. 68 FR 43713, July 24, 2003.

 7 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Final), USITC Publication 3617, August

2003.

 8

 U.S. Department of Justice, “Illinois Corporation Pleads Guilty to Illegally Dealing in Falsely Labeled Fish

from Vietnam,” Press Release, March 12, 2008.

 9

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, “Seafood Importer and Associated Corporations Receive

Imprisonment and Fines,” Press Release, January 8, 2007.

 10 Department of Justice, “President of Company That Illegally Imported Catfish Sentenced to More Than Five

Years in Federal Prison,” Press Release, May 19, 2009. The other conspirators also received major sentences.

 11 Commerce clarified the scope of the order to include frozen fish fillets processed in Cambodia by Lian Heng

from Vietnamese-origin whole live fish for export to the United States. 71 FR 38608 (July 7, 2006). 

I-2

THE ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION

The original investigation resulted from a petition filed on June 28, 2002, on behalf of the Catfish

Farmers of America--a trade association of U.S. catfish farmers and processors--and by individual U.S.

catfish processors, alleging that an industry in the United States was materially injured and threatened

with material injury by reason of less-than-fair-value imports of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. In June

2003, Commerce made a final affirmative determination.6

 In August 2003, the Commission made an

affirmative final determination.7

SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS

Litigation and U.S. Government Findings

Since the original investigation there have been several actions taken by the U.S. Government

with regard to certain frozen fish fillets. In 2007, the Department of Justice, Immigration and Customs

Enforcement, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Food and Drug Administration participated

in several investigations and eventual indictments of various firms and several of their employees in a

scheme to import, distribute, and sell falsely labeled frozen fish fillets between 2004 and 2005.8

 These

actions were in violation of the Lacey Act, which prohibits, among other things, the receipt, acquisition or

purchase of fish that was taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of U.S. laws or regulations.

The indictment alleged that the defendants conspired to deceive customs agents in order to avoid the

antidumping duty imposed on frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam in 2003. In a separate

investigation, a seafood importer and related corporations received imprisonment and fines for a multiyear scheme that involved smuggling and distributing mislabeled frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam

in the United States and Canada and laundering the illegal proceeds between 2002 and 2005 to avoid

paying antidumping duties.9

 In addition, two seafood dealers were indicted in Florida on 42 counts of

identifying U.S. imports of farmed swai or tra from Vietnam as wild grouper between May 2002 and

April 2005. On May 18, 2009, the president of Virginia Star Seafood Corp. was sentenced to 63 months

in prison and fined more than $12 million for antidumping duty avoidance for participating in a

conspiracy in which more than 10 million pounds of frozen fish fillets were imported from Vietnam, but

fraudulently labeled and sold as sole, grouper and other species.10

In 2004-06, the U.S. Department of Commerce found that two related Vietnamese firms

circumvented the antidumping order by importing whole, live basa and tra into Cambodia and processing

them into frozen fish fillets for export to the United States.11 In 2007, the Department of Commerce

directed U.S. Customs to impose a per unit antidumping duty on frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam,
 12 72 FR 13242 (March 21, 2007).

 13 COOL regulations for fish and seafood became effective on September 30, 2004, while Congress passed

measures subsequent to the 2002 farm bill delaying implementation of COOL regulations for other commodities.

 14 Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, exhibit 8.

 15 USDA, FAS, “USDA Grants Assistance to Catfish Producers in 18 States under Trade Adjustment Assistance

Program,” Press Release, November 13, 2003.

 16 The 2008 farm bill stipulated that the final catfish inspection rule be implemented 18 months after the

enactment of the legislation in May 2008. FSIS intends to publish a proposed rule during 2009. William P. Milton,

Jr. Assistant Administrator, Office of Catfish Inspection Programs, “Developing Rule of Catfish Inspection,”

presented at the USDA Agricultural Outlook Forum, February 27, 2009.

 17 Since the issuance of the prehearing report, Staff has incorporated two additional questionnaire responses

(those of ***) as well as modest revisions to previously- submitted questionnaires. The changes have increased the

coverage of the trade, financial, and price data presented in this report.

I-3

rather than an ad valorem rate, as a result of certain importers undervaluing shipments to reduce the

burden of the antidumping duty.12

Legislative and Regulatory Actions

During and following the original investigation there have been several legislative and regulatory

actions taken by the U.S. government regarding certain frozen fish fillets. The Farm Security and Rural

Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 farm bill) included a provision that limits the use of the name ‘catfish’

in food product labeling to fish of the Ictaluriadae family, which is the species of catfish grown in the

United States, commonly known as channel catfish. In addition, the 2002 farm bill included catfish in

country-of-origin (COOL) labeling requirements that apply to retail sales, but specifically exempt food

service sales (including restaurants).13 Six states also have passed legislation regarding catfish labeling;

the laws in three of those states (Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana) apply to labeling catfish on menus

at the restaurant level.14 In addition, for the period January-December 2002, U.S. catfish producers

qualified for assistance under the U.S. Trade Adjustment Assistance program, through which USDA

provides technical assistance and cash benefits to producers if an increase in imports of a like commodity

has contributed importantly to a decline in price and a loss of income.15 More recently, the Food,

Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (the 2008 farm bill) amended the inspection regulations for catfish

in the United States, requiring domestic and imported catfish to be subject to a continuous inspection

program by the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), rather than it had previously under

the Food and Drug Administration. The proposed final inspection regulation will include the Food Safety

and Inspection Service (FSIS) definition of “catfish,” details regarding country of origin labeling

requirements, equivalency of foreign inspection systems, and provide for detention, seizure,

condemnation of adulterated or misbranded product.16

SUMMARY DATA

Table I-1 presents summary data from the original investigation and the current review. The data

for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise

include frozen basa or tra fillets. Data for nonsubject fillets include frozen catfish, basa, or tra fillets.

As shown below, the market share of subject imports from Vietnam diminished in 2003, the year the

antidumping duty order was issued; recovered in 2004-05; and was higher in 2006-08. The largest source

of nonsubject imports is China, with a 13.0 percent share of the total U.S. market in 2008.17
I-4

Table I-1Certain frozen fish fillets: Summary data from the original investigation and the current five-year review, 2000-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per pou

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

U.S. consumption quantity: Amount 148,428 158,575 184,164 161,482 170,548 182,439 220,693 

 Processors’ share:1 90.7 83.0 80.1 87.1 80.2 77.2 61.8 

 Importers’ share:1

 Vietnam 8.4 16.4 19.6 12.2 18.4 17.8 24.3 

 All other countries 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.7 1.5 4.9 14.0  Total imports 9.3 17.0 19.0 12.9 19.8 22.8 38.2 U.S. consumption value: Amount 395,615 380,669 385,988 364,413 405,920 424,880 519,595 

 Processors’ share1 93.6 88.9 86.0 92.9 88.3 88.5 75.6 

 Importers’ share:1

 Vietnam 5.9 10.8 13.8 6.6 10.6 8.3 14.0  All other countries 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.0 3.2 10.4  Total imports 6.4 11.1 14.0 7.1 11.7 11.5 24.4 

U.S. imports from–  Vietnam: Quantity 12,540 25,978 36,046 19,689 31,349 32,548 53,531  Value 23,450 41,045 53,348 24,228 43,150 35,258 72,872  Unit value2 $1.87 $1.58 $1.48 $1.23 $1.38 $1.08 $1.36 

 Ending inventory quantity 532 340 939 *** *** *** ***  All other countries: Quantity 1,202 961 586 1,176 2,499 8,962 30,870 

 Value 1,778 1,319 688 1,775 4,169 13,686 54,159  Unit value $1.48 $1.37 $1.17 $1.51 $1.67 $1.53 $1.75 

 Ending inventory quantity 0 0 0 *** *** *** *** 

Table continued on next page.
I-5

Table I-1 – ContinuedCertain frozen fish fillets: Summary data from the original investigation and the current five-year review, 2000-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per poun

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

All countries: Quantity 13,742 26,939 36,632 20,865 33,848 41,510 84,401 

 Value 25,228 42,364 54,036 26,003 47,319 48,944 127,031  Unit value $1.84 $1.57 $1.48 $1.25 $1.40 $1.18 $1.51 

 Ending inventory quantity 532 340 939 39 1,457 2,118 7,466 

U.S. processors’ (based on USDA/NASS data): Total shipments: Quantity 134,686 131,636 147,532 140,617 136,700 140,929 136,292  Value 370,387 338,305 331,952 338,409 358,601 375,936 392,564 U.S. processors’ (based on questionnaire data): Capacity quantity 150,565 148,198 169,888 146,079 146,482 150,802 150,001  Production quantity 108,295 103,112 108,469 106,591 111,483 114,138 111,763 

 Capacity utilization1 71.9 69.6 63.8 73.0 76.1 75.7 74.5 

U.S. shipments Quantity 107,059 100,101 110,909 106,315 107,744 115,750 109,265  Value 294,203 257,336 249,107 255,666 283,331 308,986 318,030 

Unit value $2.75 $2.57 $2.25 $2.40 $2.63 $2.67 $2.91 

Export shipments:

 Quantity 369 409 268 9 000 Value 1,040 1,166 732 23 000

 Unit value $2.82 $2.85 $2.73 $2.56 (3) (3) (3) 

Table continued on next page.
I-6

Table I-1 – ContinuedCertain frozen fish fillets: Summary data from the original investigation and the current five-year review, 2000-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds; value=1,000 dollars; unit values, unit labor costs, and unit financial data are per poun

Item 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 U.S. processors’:

 Ending inventory quantity 8,051 10,654 8,195 7,502 10,864 9,376 11,592  Inventories/total shipments1 7.5 10.6 7.4 7.1 10.1 8.1 10.6  Production workers 3,365 3,056 2,918 2,612 2,608 2,753 2,681 

 Hours worked (1,000 hours) 6,253 5,534 5,373 5,338 5,128 5,308 5,427 

 Wages paid (1,000 dollars) 45,556 42,180 41,684 37,566 37,508 40,095 41,343 

 Hourly wages $7.29 $7.62 $7.76 $7.04 $7.31 $7.55 $7.62 

 Productivity (pounds per hour) 17.3 18.6 20.2 20.0 21.7 21.5 20.6 

 Unit labor costs $0.42 $0.41 $0.39 $0.35 $0.34 $0.35 $0.37 

U.S. processors’: Net sales quantity 97,319 94,288 97,918 107,402 108,368 115,235 110,709 

 Net sales value 274,654 247,283 223,589 258,897 282,459 306,899 317,991 

 Net sales unit value $2.82 $2.62 $2.28 $2.41 $2.61 $2.66 $2.87 

 Cost of goods sold 244,283 215,934 198,507 216,773 245,778 267,658 279,551 

 Gross profit or (loss) 30,371 31,349 25,082 42,124 36,681 39,241 38,440 

 SG&A expenses 24,132 24,799 24,860 26,048 28,274 29,613 28,926 

 Operating income or (loss) 6,239 6,550 222 16,076 8,407 9,628 9,514  Capital expenditures 6,879 20,923 12,431 5,343 4,220 5,684 3,936 

 Unit cost of goods sold $2.51 $2.29 $2.03 $2.02 $2.27 $2.32 $2.53 

 Unit SG&A $0.25 $0.26 $0.25 $0.24 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 

 Unit operating income/(loss) $0.06 $0.07 $0.00 $0.15 $0.08 $0.08 $0.09 

 COGS/sales1 88.9 87.3 88.8 83.7 87.0 87.2 87.9 

Operating income or (loss)/sales1 2.3 2.6 0.1 6.2 3.0 3.1 3.0 

Table continued on next page.
I-7

Table I-1 – Continued

Certain frozen fish fillets: Summary data from the original investigation and the current five-year

review, 2000-08

 1 In percent.

 2

 Unit value data reflect the valuation of exports from Vietnam to the United States, rather than U.S. imports from Vietnam

(which, as previously noted, were subject to reporting irregularities). The unit values of U.S. imports from Vietnam as reflected in

official Commerce statistics are $1.31 (2003), $1.29 (2004), $1.06 (2005), $1.45 (2006), $1.57 (2007), and $1.56 (2008).

 3 Not applicable.

Note.-– Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.– Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise include frozen

basa or tra fillets. Data for nonsubject fillets include frozen catfish, basa, or tra fillets.

Source: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Final), USITC Publication 3617, August 2003, pp. 3-19;

“Views of the Commission” and tables cited therein; and data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (imports from

Vietnam reported as exports to the United States by VASEP), from official Commerce statistics (2003-08), and from USDA/NASS

statistics (2003-08).

RELATED TITLE VII INVESTIGATIONS

The Commission has not conducted any previous investigation on either catfish or on basa and

tra. The Commission has, however, conducted several investigations on related products, namely fish and

other seafood, as shown in table I-2.

Table I-2 

Freshwater and saltwater fish: Related investigations, 1980-2008

Date1 Number Product(s) Country Outcome Status

1980 701-TA-40 Fresh, chilled, or frozen fish Canada Negative ---

1980 731-TA-17 Clams in airtight containers Canada Negative ---

1981 701-TA-81 Hard-smoked herring filets Canada Terminated ---

1982 701-TA-82 Hard-smoked herring filets Canada Negative ---

1984 731-TA-199 Dried salted codfish Canada Affirmative Order revoked

1985 701-TA-257 Certain fresh Atlantic groundfish Canada Affirmative Order revoked

1990 701-TA-302 Atlantic salmon Norway Affirmative Order in place

1990 731-TA-454 Atlantic salmon Norway Affirmative Order in place

1996 731-TA-752 Crawfish tail meat China Affirmative Order in place

1997 701-TA-372 Fresh Atlantic salmon Chile ITA Negative ---

1997 731-TA-768 Fresh Atlantic salmon Chile Affirmative Order revoked

2001 731-TA-924 Mussels Canada Terminated ---

2002 701-TA-429 IQF coldwater pink shrimp Canada Terminated ---

2002 731-TA-1011 IQF coldwater pink shrimp Canada Terminated ---

Table continued on next page.
I-8

Table I-2 – Continued 

Freshwater and saltwater fish: Related investigations, 1980-2008

Date1 Number Product(s) Country Outcome Status

 2004 731-TA-1063

Frozen or canned warmwater

shrimp & prawns Brazil Affirmative Order in place

2004 731-TA-1064

Frozen or canned warmwater

shrimp & prawns China Affirmative Order in place

2004 731-TA-1065

Frozen or canned warmwater

shrimp & prawns Ecuador Affirmative Order in place

2004 731-TA-1066

Frozen or canned warmwater

shrimp & prawns India Affirmative Order in place

2004 731-TA-1067

Frozen or canned warmwater

shrimp & prawns Thailand Affirmative Order in place

2004 731-TA-1068

Frozen or canned warmwater

shrimp & prawns Vietnam Affirmative Order in place

 1 “Date” refers to the year in which the investigation was instituted by the Commission.

Source: Compiled from Commission determinations and Commerce orders and revocations published in the Federal Register.

STATUTORY CRITERIA AND ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

Statutory Criteria

Section 751(c) of the Act requires Commerce and the Commission to conduct a review no later

than five years after the issuance of an antidumping or countervailing duty order or the suspension of an

investigation to determine whether revocation of the order or termination of the suspended investigation

“would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping or a countervailable subsidy (as the

case may be) and of material injury.” Section 752(a) of the Act provides that in making its determination

of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of material injury--

(1) IN GENERAL.-- . . . the Commission shall determine whether revocation of

an order, or termination of a suspended investigation, would be likely to lead to

continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. The

Commission shall consider the likely volume, price effect, and impact of imports of the

subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation

is terminated. The Commission shall take into account--

(A) its prior injury determinations, including the volume, price

effect, and impact of imports of the subject merchandise on the industry

before the order was issued or the suspension agreement was accepted, 

(B) whether any improvement in the state of the industry is

related to the order or the suspension agreement, 
I-9

(C) whether the industry is vulnerable to material injury if the

order is revoked or the suspension agreement is terminated, and 

(D) in an antidumping proceeding . . ., (Commerce’s findings)

regarding duty absorption . . ..

(2) VOLUME.--In evaluating the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether the likely volume of imports of the subject

merchandise would be significant if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is

terminated, either in absolute terms or relative to production or consumption in the

United States. In so doing, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors,

including--

(A) any likely increase in production capacity or existing unused

production capacity in the exporting country, 

(B) existing inventories of the subject merchandise, or likely

increases in inventories, 

(C) the existence of barriers to the importation of such

merchandise into countries other than the United States, and 

(D) the potential for product-shifting if production facilities in

the foreign country, which can be used to produce the subject

merchandise, are currently being used to produce other products.

(3) PRICE.--In evaluating the likely price effects of imports of the subject

merchandise if the order is revoked or the suspended investigation is terminated, the

Commission shall consider whether--

(A) there is likely to be significant price underselling by imports

of the subject merchandise as compared to domestic like products, and 

(B) imports of the subject merchandise are likely to enter the

United States at prices that otherwise would have a significant

depressing or suppressing effect on the price of domestic like products.

(4) IMPACT ON THE INDUSTRY.--In evaluating the likely impact of imports of

the subject merchandise on the industry if the order is revoked or the suspended

investigation is terminated, the Commission shall consider all relevant economic factors

which are likely to have a bearing on the state of the industry in the United States,

including, but not limited to--

(A) likely declines in output, sales, market share, profits,

productivity, return on investments, and utilization of capacity, 

(B) likely negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment,

wages, growth, ability to raise capital, and investment, and 

(C) 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.
 18 Certain industry-wide data are published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and where appropriate, are

used and reported herein.

 19 In the first administrative review, Commerce found that CATACO, a major Vietnamese exporter of certain

frozen fish fillets, had agreed to reimburse the antidumping duties paid by certain U.S. importers. Certain Frozen

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the First Administrative Review, 71 FR 14172,

March 21, 2006. 

 20 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review and New Shipper Reviews, 74 FR 11349, March 17, 2009, Decision Memorandum, pp. 16-17. 

I-10

The Commission shall evaluate all such relevant economic factors . . . within the context

of the business cycle and the conditions of competition that are distinctive to the affected

industry.

Section 752(a)(6) of the Act states further that in making its determination, “the Commission may

consider the magnitude of the margin of dumping or the magnitude of the net countervailable subsidy. If

a countervailable subsidy is involved, the Commission shall consider information regarding the nature of

the countervailable subsidy and whether the subsidy is a subsidy described in Article 3 or 6.1 of the

Subsidies Agreement.”

Organization of the Report

Information obtained during the course of this review that relates to the above-discussed statutory

criteria is presented throughout this report. A summary of trade and financial data for frozen fish fillets

market, as collected in this review, is presented in appendix C. U.S. industry data are based on the

questionnaire responses of 14 U.S. processors of certain frozen fish fillets that account for 82.4 percent of

total U.S. production (by weight) of the domestic like product in 2008.18 U.S. import data and related

information are based on data provided by the Vietnamese Association of Seafood Exporters and

Producers (VASEP), official statistics of Commerce, and questionnaire responses, as noted. The

Commission received 11 responses from U.S. importers of certain frozen fish fillets that are believed to

have accounted for *** percent of U.S. imports from Vietnam in 2008, and *** percent of total U.S.

imports. Foreign industry data and related information are based on the questionnaire responses of

VASEP. Responses by U.S. processors, importers, purchasers, and foreign producers of certain frozen

fish fillets to a series of questions concerning the significance of the existing antidumping duty order and

the likely effects of revocation are presented in appendix D, while discussions of raw material prices and

variance calculations appear in appendixes E and F. 

COMMERCE’S REVIEWS

Administrative Reviews

Table I-3 presents information on Commerce’s administrative reviews of the subject antidumping

duty order on the subject frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Commerce has completed four administrative

reviews and has a fifth ongoing review.19 In the fourth administrative review, Commerce made an

affirmative finding of duty absorption with respect to QVD Food and its U.S. affiliate QVD USA.20
 21 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Rescission of Antidumping Duty

New Shipper Review, 72 FR 2857, January 23, 2007. 

 22 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Anticircumvention Inquiry and

Scope Inquiry, November 2, 2004, 69 FR 63507. 

 23 Circumvention and Scope Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty order on Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty

Order; Partial Final Termination of Circumvention Inquiry and Final Rescission of Scope Inquiry, 71 FR 38608,

July 7, 2006.

I-11

Table I-3

Frozen fish fillets: Administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order for Vietnam

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

March 21, 2006

(71 FR 14170) 01/31/2003 - 07/31/2004

Vinh Hoan 6.81

CATACO 80.88

Vietnam-Wide Entity1 63.88

March 21, 2007

(72 FR 13242) 08/01/2004 - 07/31/2005

QVD 15.013

Cataco 80.88

Vietnam-Wide Entity2 63.88

March 24, 2008

(73 FR 15479) 08/01/2005 - 07/31/2006

QVD 0.00

ESS 0.005

Lian Heng with Certification 0.00

Lian Heng without Certification 63.88

CATACO 80.88

Vietnam-Wide Entity4 63.88

April 17, 2009

(74 FR 17816) 08/01/2006 - 07/31/2007

QVD 0.52

Agifish 0.52

Anvifish 0.52

Vietnam-Wide Entity6 63.88

 1 The Vietnam-Wide Entity includes Phan Quan.

 2

 The Vietnam-Wide Entity includes Cafatex, Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan, Afiex, ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Ding, and Vinh

Long.

 3

 Amended May 1, 2007.

 4

 The Vietnam-Wide Entity includes Phan Quan.

 5

 Amended August 15, 2008 to correct a ministerial error, 73 FR 47885. 

 6

 The Vietnam-Wide Entity includes An Xuyen.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

New Shipper Reviews

Table I-4 presents information on Commerce’s new shipper reviews of the subject antidumping

duty order on the subject frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. Commerce has completed two new shipper

reviews and has ongoing reviews. In addition, Commerce rescinded a new shipper review because the

requestor, East Sea Foods, withdrew its request for review.21

Circumvention Reviews

On November 2, 2004, Commerce initiated an anticircumvention inquiry to determine whether

certain imports of frozen fish fillets from Cambodia were circumventing the antidumping duty order.22 

Commerce concluded that Lian Heng Trading Co. Ltd. and Lian Heng Investment Co., Ltd. circumvented

the antidumping duty order by importing Vietnamese-origin whole live basa and tra into Cambodia,

which it subsequently processed into frozen fish fillets for export to the United States.23
 24 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Notice of Initiation and Preliminary Results of Changed

Circumstances Review, 72 FR 46604, August 21, 2007.

 25 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Changed Circumstances Review, 

74 FR 7659, February 19, 2009.

 26 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Final Results of Expedited

Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 5819, February 2, 2009.

I-12

Table I-4

Frozen fish fillets: New shipper reviews of the antidumping duty order for Vietnam

Date results published Period of review Producer or exporter Margin

June 30, 2008

(73 FR 36840) 08/01/2006 - 01/31/2007

Anvifish 0.001

Vinh Quang/New Century/New

Century 15.38

March 17, 2009

(74 FR 11349) 08/01/2006 - 07/31/2007

QVD 0.522

South Vina 0.00

Binh An 0.00

Agifish 0.523

Anvifish 0.523

Vietnam-Wide Entity 63.884

 1 Amended from an initial final rate of 31.68 to correct a ministerial error. 73 FR 47884, August 15, 2008. 

 2

 This rate is applicable to the QVD single entity which includes QVD, QVD Dong Thap, and Thuan Hung Co., Ltd.

 3

 For the exporters subject to review that are determined to be eligible for separate-rate status, but were not selected as

mandatory respondents, Commerce normally establishes a weighted-average margin based on an average of the rates it calculated

for the mandatory respondents, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. In this new

shipper review, there was only one mandatory respondent, QVD. Accordingly the rate calculated for QVD was applied as the rate

for Agifish and Anvifish. 

 4

 74 FR 4920.

Source: Cited Federal Register notices.

Changed Circumstance Reviews

On August 21, 2007, Commerce initiated a changed circumstances review in response to a

request from an interested party.24 Commerce has since rescinded the changed circumstances review

because it has initiated an administrative review covering the firms in question and intends to address the

changed circumstances issues as part of its ongoing 2007-08 administrative review.25 

Five-Year Review

On February 2, 2009, Commerce determined that revocation of the antidumping duty order would

be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping. As presented in table I-5, the individual

margins ranged from 36.84 percent to 53.68 percent, and the Vietnam-wide rate was 63.88 percent.26
 27 Section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)).

 28 No claims or disbursements in FY 2003.

 29 CBP, Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, “FY 2008 Annual Report, Section II: Uncollected

Duties for 2008,” available at

http://www.cbp.gov/linkhandler/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cdsoa_08/fy08_annual_rep/section2_

uncolduties.ctt/section2_uncolduties.pdf.

I-13

Table I-5

Frozen fish fillets: Expedited review of the antidumping duty order for Vietnam

Manufacturers/exporters/producers Margin

Agifish 47.05

Vinh Hoan 36.84

Nam Viet 53.68

CATACO 45.81

Afiex 45.55

CAFATEX 45.55

Da Nang 45.55

Mekonimex 45.55

QVD 45.55

Viet Hai 45.55

Vinh Long 45.55

Vietnam-Wide 63.88

Source: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review

of Antidumping Duty Order, 74 FR 5819, February 2, 2009

DISTRIBUTION OF CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT FUNDS

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“CDSOA”) (also known as the Byrd

Amendment) provides that assessed duties received pursuant to antidumping or countervailing duty

orders must be distributed to affected domestic producers for certain qualifying expenditures that these

producers incur after the issuance of such order.27 During the review period, qualified processors of

certain frozen fish fillets were eligible to receive disbursements from the U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (“CBP”) under CDSOA relating to the antidumping duty order on the subject merchandise

beginning in fiscal year 2004.28 Table I-6 presents CDSOA disbursements and claims for the Federal

fiscal years (October 1-September 30) 2004-08 by firm. In its 2008 annual report of distributions, the

CBP reported that it was unable to collect $7,114,829 in duties owed under the order.29
I-14

Table I-6

Certain frozen fish fillets: CDSOA disbursements, by firm, and total claims, Federal fiscal years

2004-08

Item

Fiscal year

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Disbursements

Southern Pride Catfish $0 $940,530 $496,815 $1,171,461 $1,311,475

Seabrook Seafood Inc. 0 44,123 22,492 40,449 37,713

Pride of the Pond 0 185,753 93,865 214,396 220,533

America’s Catch, Inc. 0 616,574 531,581 1,164,829 1,132,119

Delta Pride Catfish, Inc. 0 793,023 396,526 819,789 771,469

Catfish Farmers of

America 0 20,130 9,629 23,066 22,674

T T & W Farm Products

Inc.1 0 1,157,337 542,467 1,171,228 1,091,098

Consolidated Catfish

Companies LLC 0 708,931 370,647 899,938 862,524

Prime Line 0 102,451 0 103,446 0

Simmons Farm Raised

Catfish Inc. 0 350,747 172,504 400,499 389,911

Carolina Classics

Catfish Inc. 0 89,271 38,318 72,280 72,201

Alabama Catfish Inc.2 0 543,915 277,333 646,411 630,028

Harings Pride Catfish 0 121,626 56,826 321,320 491,572

Guidrys Catfish Inc. 0 0 216,943 551,059 674,768

Pride of the South

Catfish Inc. 0 0 270,130 776,542 0

Total 0 5,674,411 3,496,076 8,376,713 7,708,085

Claims

Total 92,351,985 316,980,425 614,274,972 935,205,928 1,066,571,797

 1 Listed in CDSOA records in 2008 as T T AND W FARM PRODUCTS INC dba HEARTLAND CATFISH CO.

 2

 Listed in CDSOA records in 2008 as ALABAMA CATFISH INC dba HARVEST SELECT CATFISH.

Note.--Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Source: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s CDSOA Annual Reports. Retrieved from

http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/.
 30 Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR

47909, August 12, 2003.

 31 There have been several changes to the HTS classifications for reporting U.S. imports of frozen fish fillets. 

The following are the relevant statistical reporting numbers for subject frozen fish fillets during previous periods:

Until July 1, 2004: 0304.20.6030, 0304.20.6096, 0304.20.6043, and 0304.20.6057.

Until February 1, 2007: 0304.20.6033.

After February 1, 2007: 1604.19.4000, 1604.19.5000, 0305.59.4000, 0304.29.6033.

 32 Other statistical reporting numbers of broader fish categories can include frozen basa and tra fillets. The tariff

rate on breaded frozen fish fillets, classified under subheadings 1604.19.4000 and 1604.19.5000, are 10 percent and

7.5 percent, respectively. The tariff rate on dried fish fillets, classified under 0305.59.4000, is free.

I-15

THE SUBJECT MERCHANDISE

Commerce’s Scope

The imported product subject to the andidumpting duty order under review, as defined by

Commerce in its original orders, is as follows,

The product covered by this order is frozen fish fillets, including regular, shank, and strip

fillets and portions thereof, whether or not breaded or marinated, of the species

Pangasius Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus (also known as Pangasius Pangasius),

and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. The

fillet products covered by the scope include boneless fillets with the belly flap intact

(“regular” fillets), boneless fillets with the belly flap removed (“shank” fillets), boneless

shank fillets cut into strips (“fillets strips/finger”), which include fillets cut into strips,

chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other shape. Specifically excluded from the scope are

frozen whole fish (whether or not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen belly-flap nuggets.

Frozen whole dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in,

cross-section cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise

will be hereinafter referred to as frozen “basa” and “tra” fillets, which are the Vietnamese

common names for these species of fish.30

Tariff Treatment

Certain frozen fish fillets are imported under the following statistical reporting numbers of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTS”): 1604.19.4000, 1604.19.5000, 0305.59.4000,

and 0304.29.6033.31 At the time of the original investigation the tariff rate on frozen fish fillets from

Vietnam and all general duty rate countries was free (prior to December 1, 2001, the tariff rate applicable

to Vietnam was the column 2 rate of 5.5 cents per kilogram). The 2009 general rate of duty on the bulk

of certain frozen fish fillet imports is free.32
 33 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Final), USITC Publication 3617, August

2003, pp. 6-9.

 34 Domestic interested parties’ response to notice of institution, p. 24. The domestic like parties believe the

Commission must continue, as it did in the original investigation, to recognize the interdependence of the processors

and catfish farmers and to consider this relationship and the role of farms as a condition of competition. Domestic

interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 8.

 35 VASEP’s response to the notice of institution, pp. 1-4; Catfish Farmers of America & Individual Processors’

response to the notice of institution, p. 24.

 36 Catfish Farmers of America & Individual Processors’ comments on draft questionnaires (January 28, 2009). 

VASEP provided no comments on the draft questionnaires.

 37 Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 8.

 38 Information in this section is largely drawn from the final staff report in the original investigation.

 39 Some farmers raise fingerlings only, selling these as feedstock to the other farmers.

I-16

THE DOMESTIC LIKE PRODUCT

In the original investigation, the Commission faced a situation in which there was no domestic

product that was “like” the subject imports, and therefore found the domestic product that was “most

similar” in terms of physical characteristics and uses to frozen basa and tra fillets to be frozen catfish

fillets.33 In response to the Commission’s notice of institution, the domestic interested parties indicated

that they agreed with this definition of the domestic like product,34 while VASEP remained silent on the

issue.35 After reviewing the draft questionnaires issued by the Commission, no party requested the

collection of additional information on the issue of the domestic like product.36 The domestic interested

parties subsequently confirmed their agreement with the Commission’s original definition.37

Description38

Basa/tra and catfish each belong to wholly separate families of freshwater fish with distinct

physical characteristics, but they are both regarded in the food industry as mild-tasting, white meat,

freshwater fish, and when processed into frozen fillets are considered generally similar in appearance,

price, texture, and taste. A fillet is one of two sides of a fish with head, tail, bones, and entrails removed.

“Regular” fillets include the belly flap, or “nugget;” “shank” fillets have the flap removed; and “strip” (or

“finger”) fillets are finger-sized strips cut from regular or shank fillets. Each fillet ranges in size from

2 ounces to over 12 ounces frozen.

The Production Process

Virtually all of the basa/tra and catfish from which the subject fillets are made are commercially

raised on farms, which may or may not be related to the processing plants that produce the subject

product. Regardless of any joint ownership, farming and processing generally take place at separate

locations and are discussed separately below.

Farming

In the United States catfish are raised in man-made, earthen ponds, 10 to 20 acres in size and 3 to

6 feet deep on over 1,000 farms, located mainly in the Southeast (particularly in Mississippi, Alabama,

Arkansas, and Texas) where climate and topography favor the process. The ponds are stocked with

fingerlings 2 to 3 inches in length39 that receive a daily feeding until they reach a foodsize of at least 0.75
 40 Yields drop significantly after the fish reaches 2-3 pounds and additional costs are incurred per pound to raise

the fish. Staff field trip notes, May 1, 2009.

 41 Off-flavors are generally caused by blooms of certain algae, and such blooms are usually short-lived. If a

specific pond’s fish are rejected for flavor several times in a row, the farmer may remove the fish to another pond

with less algae or apply an algaecide to kill all the algae in the pond. The latter is detrimental to the pond as algae

aid in the pond’s oxygenation.

 42 VASEP questionnaire response.

 43 The heads, tails, skin, and viscera of the fish are saleable byproducts, usually sold to rendering plants for use in

the production of fish meal and oil.

 44 In the United States the fillets are treated with a tripolyphosphate solution prior to freezing to prevent excessive

water loss. 

I-17

pound and usually not over 3 pounds, which is generally the range that can be processed efficiently.40 

Fingerlings reach foodsize in about 10 weeks, and harvesting is year-round, although individual farms

may only harvest 2 or 3 times annually. Because several sizes of catfish are in a pond at any one time,

harvesting generally takes place using nets that allow fish smaller than foodsize to escape. Processors

generally are very particular about the size and flavor of the fish they purchase, often testing the fish in

specific ponds for flavor and sometimes rejecting a pond’s fish on the basis of flavor alone.41 After

harvesting, the fish are placed into tank trucks and are transported live to the processing plant. Catfish

farmers in the United States raise no other kinds of fish, and the vast bulk of the fish they raise is sold to

processors. The remainder is sold fresh to local markets.

In Vietnam the fish are raised in cages in the Mekong River, mostly in the delta region, and at

harvest are transported live downriver in cage boats to processors. The number of individual farms in

Vietnam is unknown.

 

Processing

To produce frozen fish fillets, U.S. and Vietnamese processing plants perform the same steps,

either automatically or manually depending on the individual processor, although most Vietnamese

processors are not automated. Currently, 19 processing plants operate in the United States, and more than

80 are known to operate in Vietnam.42 The fish, held live in pre-processing tanks, are first deheaded,

eviscerated, skinned, and filleted, and then, after chilling and sorting by weight, are quick-frozen and

glazed.43 Any breading or marinating is done before freezing. Quick freezing, by which the fillets are

reduced from 32 degrees Fahrenheit to 15 degrees Fahrenheit in 30 minutes or less, enables the fish to

retain more of its original (fresh) quality.44 Upon leaving the freezer, a sprayer or water bath coats the

fillets with a thin layer of ice (glaze). Finally, the fillets are packaged according to size in 15-pound

cardboard shipping cartons lined with polyethylene bags and warehoused at 0 degrees Fahrenheit or

below until shipment. The Vietnamese product is packaged in 10-pound cartons.

Most processors in the United States process catfish exclusively, but into many commercial

products other than frozen fillets, including fresh (or “iced”) fillets, fresh and frozen whole fish, fresh and

frozen dressed fish (deheaded, eviscerated, and skinned), and fresh and frozen steaks (cross sections of

large fish). The nuggets of shank fillets are also sold separately, both fresh and frozen. Based on

questionnaire responses, in 2008, 23 percent of the weight of the U.S.-grown live catfish that processors

used was processed into frozen fillets, 29 percent was processed into other products (especially whole

fresh fish, fresh fish fillets, and frozen belly-flap nuggets), and 48 percent was offal-unused parts of the

fish that were mostly sold for use in fish meal, fertilizer, and oil. Unlike U.S. processors, the Vietnamese

processors also process water animals other than the subject product, including various types of mollusks,

crustaceans, and other types of fish. 
 45 According to the response of *** in its purchaser questionnaire, “in the past year or two...a distinction in the

marketplace...(has been created) between Basa (Pangasius bocourti) and Swai (Pangasius hypophthalamus). Swai

is the cheaper and lower quality version of the two Pangasius species readily available.” In addition, in its purchaser

questionnaire, *** reports that, “When Vietnamese fish farmers started farming catfish, most of the production was

basa, which was raised in floating cages in the vast Mekong River Delta. However, in recent years, almost all

Vietnamese fish farmers have switched to tra, which now accounts for more than *** percent of Vietnam’s farmed

catfish production and a reported *** percent of exports. In addition to being hardier, tra are faster growing. While

basa take 12 months to reach a marketable size of about 3.5-4 pounds, tra can be grown to that size in just 6 months. 

This allows farmers to grow two crops of tra a year, making it a more economically attractive fish to farm. In

addition to being raised in cages, tra are farmed in earthen ponds. Although basa are considered to have a better

texture and flavor, both tra and basa are mild tasting, white-fleshed fish that have quickly found favor in markets

around the world.”

 46 Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief at 18; hearing transcript, p. 26 (Walker).

 47 Hearing transcript, pp. 32-34 (Renfroe).

 48 Hearing transcript, p. 33 (Renfroe).

 49 Texas is one of the largest catfish consuming states. There are two known U.S. processors in Texas, however,

the two processors are relatively small compared to the rest of the industry, and they purchase much of their fresh

fish from other states. Hearing transcript, pp. 32-33 (Renfroe) and pp. 121-122 (Rhodes).

 50 Catfish Processing, USDA, NASS, March 2009.

I-18

Vietnamese basa and tra were originally widely marketed, sold, and labeled in the United

States as catfish; however, Congressional legislation prohibited this practice at all levels of U.S. sales

beginning January 2002 (the legislation was signed into law on May 13, 2002, but was retroactive to

January 1, 2002). Some other names have been used in the marketing and labeling of Vietnamese basa

and tra, including “basa/tra,” “swai/sutchi,” and “Pangasius.”45 Distributors, sellers, or restaurant owners

may still be offering basa and tra as a substitute for catfish whether in oral communications, price lists, or

menus.46 Reportedly, basa and tra does not have its own identity at the restaurant level and is known to

have been marketed to customers as “southern fried fish.”47 Hearing testimony indicates that state level

labeling laws and community pressure in catfish producing regions may be a deterrent of such practices in

the major producing states.48

U.S. MARKET PARTICIPANTS

U.S. Farmers

Domestic catfish farming has generally contracted since the original investigation. At the farmer

level, U.S. total catfish water acres decreased by 13 percent during 2003-08, falling by 17 percent,

13 percent, and 8 percent in Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas, respectively, but increasing in Texas,

by more than 300 percent (table I-7).49 The value of grower sales fell 4 percent over the period. The

number of farming operations fluctuated upward, with a 12 percent increase over the period January 2003

to January 2009. The number of farming operations reached a peak in January 2008 of 1,617 before

falling by January 2009 to 1,306. Overall catfish pounds processed decreased from a historical high of

661,504 million pounds in 2003 to 509,597 million pounds in 2008.50
 51 Catfish Farmers of America & Individual Processors’ response to the notice of institution, p. 23.

 52 ***.

 53 Catfish Farmers of America & Individual Processors’ response to the notice of institution, p. 23.

 54 Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, p. 1.

I-19

Table I-7

Catfish farmers: Operations, area, and total sales, 2003-08

State Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

MS Number of operations 405 410 410 390 370 427

Area (acres) 109,000 101,000 101,000 98,700 94,200 90,300

Total sales ($1,000) 243,176 274,971 243,101 250,213 229,385 206,228

AL Number of operations 231 230 230 194 199 252

Area (acres) 25,500 25,400 25,100 23,700 23,900 22,200

Total sales ($1,000) 85,159 101,198 99,144 96,710 95,782 93,254

AR Number of operations 155 161 153 132 137 155

Area (acres) 34,000 34,000 31,500 32,800 32,000 31,400

Total sales ($1,000) 59,047 66,618 77,668 80,305 78,110 64,263

TX Number of operations 36 36 62 57 57 149

Area (acres) 850 850 1,030 1,600 3,800 3,800

Total sales ($1,000) 3,350 3,446 5,203 5,951 12,152 13,212

All other Number of operations 334 310 303 262 483 634

Area (acres) 17,850 16,540 14,960 13,940 15,800 15,300

Total sales ($1,000) 34,292 33942 34,423 38,996 39,164 33,041

Total Number of operations 1,161 1,147 1,158 1,035 1,246 1,6171

Area (acres) 187,200 177,790 173,590 170,740 169,700 163,000

Total sales ($1,000) 425,024 480,175 459,539 472,175 454,593 409,998

 1 As of January 1, 2009, the number of operations was 1,306.

Note.--The number of operations presented above is based on data for January 1 of each year.

Source: Catfish Production, USDA, NASS, 2009.

U.S. Processors

There were 20 known catfish processors as of January 2008. Details regarding each firm’s

production location(s), share of 2008 certain frozen fish fillets production, and position on the orders are

presented in table I-8. Since the original investigation, at least four domestic catfish processors

(Aquafarms, Arkansas Catfish Growers LLC dba SEACAT, Prairie Lands, and Pride of the South Catfish

Company) have ceased operations and one other domestic processor (Southern Pride) has closed several

plants.51 Effective June 30, 2008, Country Select and Delta Pride entered into an operating agreement

whereby all sales and production of these two processors would be merged into and conducted by a

newly created company, Consolidated Catfish Producers.52 In addition, Heartland Catfish purchased the

operations of Southern Pride in September 2008.53 There is a large degree of integration between the

catfish processors and catfish farmers and most processors are farmer-owned.54 ***.
I-20

Table I-8

Frozen fish fillets: U.S. processors, position on continuation of the orders, shares of U.S.

shipments in 2002 and 2008, and U.S. production locations

Firm Production locations

Share of shipments

(percent) Positions on the

continuation of the

2002 2008 orders

America’s Catch1 2 Itta Bena, MS *** *** ***

Aquafarms3 Holdenville, OK *** *** ***

Carolina Classics Ayden, NC *** (4

) ***

Consolidated Catfish

Processors5 6

Indianola, MS

Isola, MS

Belzoni, MS (4

) *** ***

Country Select7 5

Isola, MS

Belzoni, MS *** *** ***

Delta Pride6 8

Indianola, MS

Belzoni, MS *** *** ***

Delta Supreme1 Dumas, AR (

4

) *** ***

Farm Catch Hughes Springs, TX (

4

) (4) ***

Fish Breeders1 Hagerman, ID (

9

) (9) ***

Freshwater Farms10 Belzoni, MS (

4

) *** ***

Guidry Catfish1

 Breux Bridge, LA (

4

) (11) ***

Haring Catfish1 Wisner, LA *** *** ***

Harvest Select12 Uniontown, AL *** *** ***

Heartland Catfish14

Itta Bena, MS

North Greensboro, AL *** *** ***

Lakes Farm Raised1 Dundee, MS (

4

) (11) ***

Prairie Lands13 Pickneyville, IL *** *** ***

Pride of the Pond1 15 Tunica, MS *** *** ***

Pride of the South16 Brooksville, MS *** *** ***

Prime Line Scooba, MS *** (4

) ***

Seabrook Seafood1 Kemah, TX *** *** ***

SEACAT17 Lade Village, AR *** *** ***

Table continued on next page.
I-21

Table I-8--Continued

Frozen fish fillets: U.S. processors, position on continuation of the orders, shares of U.S.

shipments in 2002 and 2008, and U.S. production locations

Firm Production locations

Share of shipments

(percent) Positions on the

continuation of the

2002 2008 orders

Simmons18 Yazoo City, MS *** *** ***

Southern Pride19

Greenssboro, AL

Demopolis, AL *** *** ***

South Fresh20

Eutaw, MS

Indianola, MS (4) *** ***

Superior Fish Macon, MS (

4

) (4) ***

 Total responding *** ***

 Total processors21 100.0 100.0

 1 Not owned by another firm.

 2

 Has common family ownership of catfish farms and processing plant.

 3

 Ceased operations in 2006.

 4

 No questionnaire response.

 5

 Effective June 30, 2008, Country Select and Delta Pride entered into an operating agreement whereby all sales

and production of these two processors would be merged into and conducted by a newly created company,

Consolidated Catfish Producers.

 6

 ***.

 7

 Brand name for Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC. ***.

 8

 Farmer-owned cooperative.

 9

 ***.

 10 ***.

 11 ***.

 12 Brand name for Alabama Catfish Inc. ***.

 13 Ceased operations in 2003.

 14 Brand name for TT&W Farm Products, Inc. ***.

 15 Brand name for Magnolia Processing Inc.

 16 Ceased operations in 2006.

 17 Ceased operations in 2004.

 18 ***. 

 19 ***. 

 20 ***.

 21 Based on NASS data for total frozen catfish fillet production.

Source: Staff Report, July 7, 2003 (INV-AA-088), p. III-2 and compiled from data submitted in response to

Commission questionnaires.
 55 Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam, Inv. No. 731-1012 (Final), USITC Publication 3617, August 2003,

p. IV-1.

 56 Ibid.

I-22

U.S. Importers

In the original investigation, the Commission sent importer questionnaires to 25 firms believed to

be importers of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam; in addition, each U.S. processor received an

importer questionnaire.55 Responses to the Commission’s importer questionnaires in the final phase of

the original investigation were received from 7 companies.56 In response to the Commission’s importers’

questionnaires issued in this review, 11 firms supplied information regarding imports of certain frozen

fish fillets. ***. Table I-9 presents U.S. importers, their imports, and sources. 

Table I-9

Certain frozen fish fillets: Reported U.S. imports, by importer and by source of imports, 2008

Firm Location

Share of 

2008 reported

U.S. imports

from Vietnam

(percent)

Share of 

2008

reported total

U.S. imports 

(percent)

Source of

other imports

Alliance Food Rosemeads, CA *** *** ***

American Seafood1 New Bedford, MA *** *** ***

Beaver Street Fisheries Jacksonville, FL *** *** ***

Colorado Boxed Beef Auburndale, FL *** *** ***

H&N Foods Vernon, CA *** *** ***

Independence Fish Plymouth Meeting, PA *** *** ***

Piazza’s Seafood 2 Saint Rose, LA *** *** ***

QVD3 Bellevue, WA *** *** ***

Seoul Shik Poom Hillside, NJ *** *** ***

South Fresh4 Oxford, MS *** *** ***

Wellsea Trading Houston, TX *** *** ***

 Total 100.0 100.0

 1 ***. 

 2

 ***. 

 3

 ***. 

 4

 U.S. processor, ***.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 57 Of the 26 responding purchasers, 17 purchased the domestic frozen catfish fillets and a combination of the

frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam and/or the subject products from third countries, 5 purchased only the

domestic frozen catfish fillets, 2 purchased only the frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam, and 2 purchased the

subject products only from third countries. Of the total purchases reported during 2003-08, the domestic frozen

catfish fillets accounted for 61.9 percent, the frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam accounted for 15.9 percent, the

subject products from third countries accounted for 8.2 percent, and an unspecified mix of domestic and imported

subject products from Vietnam and third countries accounted for 14.0 percent. 

 58 These 12 firms are ***. 

 59 These 5 firms are ***.

 60 These firms are ***.

 61 These firms are ***. ***.

 62 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-2.

 63 The responding food service distributors reported selling the certain frozen fish fillets primarily to restaurants,

but also to hotels, school systems, healthcare facilities, nursing homes, the military, and casinos; two of these firms

also reported selling the subject products to grocery chains, club stores, convenience stores, and delis. U.S.

purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-4.

 64 The responding wholesale distributors reported selling the certain frozen fish fillets primarily to grocery stores

and warehouses of retail supermarkets, but also to food service distributors and to the military. Ibid.

I-23

U.S. Purchasers

The Commission received 26 useable purchaser questionnaire responses from firms that bought 

frozen fillets of basa, tra, and/or catfish during 2003-08.57 Twelve responding purchasers are food service

distributors,58 6 are restaurants,59 5 are wholesale distributors,60 and 5 are grocery chains;61 one of the food

service distributors reported it was also a wholesale distributor and one of the restaurants reported that it

was also a food service distributor.62 Reported purchases from these 26 purchasers totaled almost

363.3 million pounds of certain frozen fish fillets during 2003-08 (involves some double counting), which

is 31.6 percent of the quantity of total U.S. consumption of these products during this period. The largest

purchaser based on the total reported quantity of certain frozen fish fillets purchased during 2003-08 by

all 26 responding firms was ***, followed by ***, ***, and ***.

The 10 firms that were solely food service distributors accounted for 74.5 percent of the quantity

of total purchases of certain frozen fish fillets reported during 2003-08.63 The 5 firms that were solely

restaurants accounted for 12.1 percent of the quantity reported; the 4 firms that were solely wholesale

distributors accounted for 11.4 percent of the quantity reported;64 and the 5 firms that were grocery chains

accounted for 1.2 percent of the quantity reported. The combined purchases of the purchaser that was a

food service and wholesale distributor, and the purchaser that was both a restaurant and food service

distributor accounted for the remaining 0.8 percent of the quantity reported.

APPARENT U.S. CONSUMPTION AND MARKET SHARES

Table I-10 presents U.S. shipments, imports, and apparent U.S. consumption of certain frozen

fish fillets for 2003-08. Table I-11 presents total U.S. consumption and market shares for the same

period. Apparent U.S. consumption increased between 2003 and 2006, decreased in 2007, and then

increased in 2008 (but remained below the 2006 peak level of apparent consumption). The U.S.

processors’ market share decreased throughout the period 2003-08. The market share of imports of

certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam increased overall from 2003 to 2008, with slight declines in 2005

and 2007. Imports from other sources increased markedly from 2003 to 2008 and accounted for a

growing share of the U.S. market, while U.S. processors’ shipments decreased overall and accounted for a

diminishing share of the U.S. market.
I-24

Table I-10

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. shipments of domestic product, U.S. imports, by sources, and

apparent U.S. consumption, 2003-08

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

U.S. processors’ shipments 140,617 136,700 140,929 136,292 116,037 114,703

U.S. imports from --

 Vietnam 19,689 31,349 32,548 53,531 46,728 53,305

 Other countries 1,176 2,499 8,962 30,870 39,863 44,129

Total imports 20,865 33,848 41,510 84,401 86,591 97,434

Total U.S. consumption 161,482 170,548 182,439 220,693 202,628 212,137

Value ($1,000)

U.S. processors’ shipments 338,409 358,601 375,936 392,564 334,755 330,657

 U.S. imports from --

 Vietnam 24,228 43,150 35,258 72,872 67,606 78,559

 Other countries 1,775 4,169 13,686 54,159 72,121 77,823

Total imports 26,003 47,319 48,944 127,031 139,727 156,382

Total U.S. consumption 364,413 405,920 424,880 519,595 474,482 487,039

Note.– Because of rounding figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.– Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise

include frozen basa or tra fillets. Data for nonsubject fillets include frozen catfish, basa, or tra fillets.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (imports from Vietnam (reported

as exports to the United States by VASEP)), from official Commerce statistics (imports from all other sources), and

from USDA/NASS data (U.S. processor shipment quantities and unit values); U.S. processor shipment values

estimated using USDA/NASS quantities and unit values.
I-25

Table I-11

Certain frozen fish fillets: Total U.S. consumption and market shares, 2003-08

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Apparent U.S.

consumption 161,482 170,548 182,439 220,693 202,628 212,137

Value (1,000 dollars)

Apparent U.S.

consumption 364,413 405,920 424,880 519,595 474,482 487,039

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. processors’ U.S.

shipments 87.1 80.2 77.2 61.8 57.3 54.1

U.S. imports from --

 Vietnam 12.2 18.4 17.8 24.3 23.1 25.1

 Other countries 0.7 1.5 4.9 14.0 19.7 20.8

Total imports 12.9 19.8 22.8 38.2 42.7 45.9

Share of value (percent)

U.S. processors’ U.S.

shipments 92.9 88.3 88.5 75.6 70.6 67.9

U.S. imports from--

 Vietnam 6.6 10.6 8.3 14.0 14.2 16.1

 Other countries 0.5 1.0 3.2 10.4 15.2 16.0

Total imports 7.1 11.7 11.5 24.4 29.4 32.1

Note.– Because of rounding, figures may not add to the totals shown.

Note.– Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise

include frozen basa or tra fillets. Data for nonsubject fillets include frozen catfish, basa, or tra fillets.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires (imports from Vietnam (reported

as exports to the United States by VASEP)), from official Commerce statistics (imports from all other sources), and

from USDA/NASS data (U.S. processor shipment quantities and unit values); U.S. processor shipment values

estimated using USDA/NASS quantities and unit values.
 
 1

 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections II-11 and II-8, respectively.

 2

 These “other” customers were described by U.S. processors and importers as grocery chains, retail stores, and

warehouse clubs. Ibid.

 3

 This distribution is similar to that reported during the original investigation. Original staff report, p. II-1.

 4

 Domestic interested parties asserted that certain frozen fish fillets are sold primarily to food service (e.g.,

restaurants) and the remainder to grocery stores. Hearing transcript, p. 85 (Rhodes and Renfroe).

 5

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-22, and USDA data for live farm-raised catfish discussed in

Part V.

II-1

PART II: CONDITIONS OF COMPETITION IN THE U.S. MARKET

U.S. CHANNELS OF DISTRIBUTION

The reporting U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets, U.S. importers of frozen basa and tra fillets

from Vietnam, and U.S. importers of certain frozen fish fillets from nonsubject countries reported their

annual U.S. shipment quantities of the subject products to three specified categories of customers during

2003-08.1

 The shares of the reported shipment quantities to total reported shipments are shown by

country and customer category in table II-1.

As seen in table II-1, the largest customer category by far was food service distributors for all

direct shipments from U.S. processors and importers of the domestic and imported certain frozen fish

fillets during 2003-08, followed by direct shipments to “other” customers,2

 and lastly, by only U.S.

processors, direct shipments to restaurants.3

 As noted in Part I, food service distributors generally sell to 

restaurants, where consumers purchase the vast majority of the certain frozen fish fillets.4

U.S. MARKET CHARACTERISTICS

Supply of certain frozen fish fillets to the U.S. market during 2003-08 was provided primarily by

U.S. processors of the domestic frozen catfish fillets and by imported frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam and frozen catfish, basa, and tra fillets from China. U.S. processors’ domestic shipments

fluctuated but decreased, beginning in 2006 and through the rest of the period, while U.S. imports of the

frozen basa, tra, and catfish fillets, including that from Vietnam and China, increased during 2003-08. 

Some imports of the frozen basa and tra fillets were mislabeled as other types of whitefish for periods

during 2003-08, but as discussed in Part I the firms responsible were prosecuted.

A close relationship exists between the catfish farmers and processors of frozen catfish fillets; the

farmers sell most of their live catfish to the processors and many farmers and processors are related by

ownership or other arrangements. As a result, U.S. seasonal supply and demand factors affecting live

catfish and frozen catfish fillets, respectively, and changes in economy-wide and sectoral activity affect

both the U.S. farmer and processor.

U.S. processors, which use exclusively live U.S. farm-raised catfish as their major input, have

faced increasing purchase prices of such catfish during 2003-08, as catfish farmers’ costs, especially for

feed, increased during 2003-08, particularly during 2007-08. Some catfish farmers have not been able to

increase the selling price of their live catfish sufficiently to cover the increased costs and have reduced or

stopped producing live catfish. This reduced the supply of live farm-raised catfish to the processors

during much of 2003-08.5

 In addition, U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets have been merging

recently, such that the industry has become more concentrated with fewer suppliers.
 6

 Certain frozen fish fillets have a shelf life of approximately six months. E-mail from ***.

 7

 *** (importer and wholesale distributor) and *** (grocery store chain) U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses,

sections IV-3 and III-8, respectively.

II-2

Table II-1

Certain frozen fish fillets: Channels of distribution for domestic product and U.S. imports sold in the U.S. market (as a

share of total shipments), 2003-081

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Share of quantity (percent)

U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments of frozen catfish fillets to--

 Food service distributors 71.5 71.6 70.9 71.7 70.4 72.9

 Restaurants 9.4 9.3 10.2 9.7 10.5 10.2

 Other customers (grocery/retail/warehouse) 19.1 19.1 18.9 18.5 19.1 16.9

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Importers’ U.S. shipments of frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam to--

 Food service distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Restaurants *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other customers (grocery/retail/warehouse) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** ***

Importers’ U.S. shipments of certain frozen fish fillets from

all other countries to--

 Food service distributors *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Restaurants *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Other customers (grocery/retail/warehouse) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Total *** *** *** *** *** ***

Total U.S. shipments to--

 Food service distributors 71.7 72.7 72.3 74.0 73.6 76.6

 Restaurants 9.4 8.9 9.7 8.9 9.1 8.2

 Other customers (grocery/retail/warehouse) 19.0 18.3 18.0 17.0 17.3 15.2

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1

 All of the reported U.S. shipments of responding U.S. processors and importers involved only U.S. commercial shipments,

which are shown in the table.

Note.–Due to rounding, numbers may not add to totals.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. demand for certain frozen fish fillets, a perishable consumer product,6 is driven largely by

consumer preferences, which, in turn, are affected by consumer demand for other whitefish, in particular,

tilapia. The demand relationship between certain frozen fish fillets and frozen fillets of other whitefish

may be some combination of substitution and complementarity, the latter due to reported consumer

preference for variety.7

 U.S. demand for certain frozen fish fillets increased during 2003-08 and
 8

 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-15a/IV-16a, III-20a/III-21a, and

III-11a/III-12a, respectively.

 9

 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section IV-11.

 10 The Farm Security and Rural investment Act of 2002 established catfish labeling rules and country-of-origin

labeling (COOL) requirements; the latter, which also requires the fish to be labeled wild or farm-raised, applies to

products sold in retail stores, but exempts food service establishments. Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have

instituted state labeling laws that are enforced at the restaurant level. Hearing transcript, p. 33 (Renfroe) and

domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, exhibit 8.

 11 *** purchaser questionnaire response, section III-9 and *** and *** purchaser questionnaire responses,

sections III-36 and IV-4.

 12 In the spring of 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration blocked shipments of several types of seafood

from China, including catfish, following laboratory tests indicating the presence of drug residues, mostly cancercausing antimicrobials and certain banned antibiotics. In addition, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi previously 

banned sales of Chinese catfish in these states after antibiotic traces were found in specimens in 2006 and 2007. The

2007 Farm Bill: Policy Options and Consequences–Catfish Policy, Terrill Hanson and J. Corey Miller, Mississippi

State University, February 2007.

 13 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section II-3.

 14 One of these five firms, ***, provided additional comments. According to the firm, it sells ***, but its

purchases of the Vietnamese product have declined because the availability of the Vietnamese basa has declined as it

has been increasingly replaced by swai (tra).

II-3

generally is expected to increase in the future, but a number of firms expect demand to remain unchanged

in the future.8

Substitution in demand between domestic frozen catfish fillets and frozen basa and tra fillets,

including those from Vietnam may have decreased somewhat in the U.S. market during the past few

years. U.S. processors asserted that the domestic and imported certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam

are substitutable.9

 On the other hand, there has been an increased emphasis on labeling requirements10

and an asserted increase in consumer awareness of differences in taste and texture between these domestic

and imported products.11 U.S. demand in parts of the southern United States reportedly exhibit strong

regional preference for the domestic frozen catfish fillets. In addition, “Buy America” laws (military) and

preferences may enhance demand for the domestic frozen catfish. On the other hand, imports of frozen

catfish fillets, particularly from China, are the same species as domestic frozen catfish fillets and may be

the most similar import product to the domestic product. However, health concerns about the Chinese

catfish may affect, at least somewhat, the degree to which these two sources of frozen catfish fillets

compete in the U.S. market.12

Twelve of the 26 responding U.S. purchasers of certain frozen fish fillets reported purchasing the

imported frozen basa and/or tra from Vietnam prior to the August 2003 application of antidumping duty

orders on the subject product from Vietnam.13 Three of these 12 firms indicated that they have not

changed their purchase patterns since August 2003, 4 firms indicated that they discontinued or reduced

their purchases due to the antidumping duty order, and 5 firms indicated that they changed their purchase

pattern for other reasons.14
 15 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-21.

 16 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-22a.

 17 Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 61, fn. 249. These prices are gathered on a survey basis and

considered a reliable indicator of price trends, although price levels of specific sales transactions may differ from the

price levels reported. Staff telephone interview with ***.

 18 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-22b.

 19 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-23.

 20 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-24.

II-4

Information on Suppliers of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets

U.S. purchasers were requested to provide information on their suppliers of certain frozen fish

fillets during 2003-08. Their responses are summarized in the following discussion. 

Purchasers were requested to identify the number of suppliers that they contact in making a

purchase of certain frozen fish fillets.15 Of the 26 purchasers responding, the food service distributors

reported contacting from 1 to 10 or more suppliers; the wholesale distributors reported contacting from 1

to 20 suppliers; the restaurants reported contacting 1 to 4 suppliers; and the grocery stores reported

contacting 1 to 6 suppliers.

Purchasers were requested to indicate if their purchases of certain frozen fish fillets involved

negotiations with their suppliers.16 Of the 26 purchasers responding, 10 indicated no and the remaining

16 indicated that they negotiate with their suppliers. Negotiations include factors such as price, quantity,

delivery schedules, timeliness, and product specifications; several of the firms specifically indicated that

they do not share competing prices while none of the responding purchasers reported quoting competing

prices. U.S. market prices of domestic frozen catfish fillets, imported frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam, and imported certain frozen fish fillets from third countries are available daily by subscription

from Urner Barry.17

Purchasers were requested to indicate if they vary purchases of certain frozen fish fillets from a

given supplier within a specific time period based on the price offered during that period.18 Of the 26

purchasers responding, 18 indicated no and 8 indicated yes. One of the latter eight purchasers, ***, also

provided the following explanation: “The imported products are not as subject to seasonal fluctuations,

whereas, for domestic products, we will buy more aggressively during periods of high supply.”

Purchasers were asked if they changed suppliers of certain frozen fish fillets since 2003.19 Of the

26 firms responding, 18 indicated no and 8 indicated yes. The latter eight purchasers reported dropping a

total of five suppliers and adding a total of four suppliers. Purchasers reported dropping suppliers

because the suppliers no longer carried the certain frozen fish fillets or the suppliers went out of business. 

Purchasers reported adding suppliers to obtain additional product lines or for risk management purposes.

Purchasers were asked if they were aware of any new suppliers of certain frozen fish fillets, either

domestic or foreign, since 2003, and whether they expected new suppliers to enter the market in the

future.20 On the question of any new suppliers since 2003, 18 of the 25 responding purchasers reported

no and 7 reported yes. The new suppliers cited by the latter seven purchasers were typically new to the

responding firm, not necessarily new in the market, or the suppliers began selling additional

products (specifically cited were frozen tra fillets from Vietnam and Chinese certain frozen fish fillets). 

On the question of expected new suppliers in the future, 19 of the 24 responding purchasers reported none

and 5 reported that they expected new suppliers in the market as a consequence of the natural “supplier

churn” in the market. In addition, one of the latter five purchasers, ***, asserted that, as tra gains

recognition, more suppliers will pick up this item.
 21 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-25.

 22 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point systems were developed by the U.S. FDA and the U.S. Agriculture

Department in 1997 to ensure food safety. U.S. FDA monitors the application of this system for seafood, which

involves seafood processors, repackers, and warehouses, both domestic and foreign exporters to this country. 

Critical Steps Toward Safer Seafood, U.S. FDA, February 1999, http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/fdsafe3.html,

retrieved April 14, 2009. 

 23 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-27.

 24 Short-run effects discussed in the supply and demand sections refer to changes that could occur within 12

months, unless otherwise indicated.

 25 Data on U.S. frozen catfish fillet production, production capacity, capacity utilization, inventories, and exports

are shown in detail in Part III.

 26 E-mail from ***.

II-5

Purchasers were requested to indicate whether they required their suppliers of certain frozen fish

fillets to become certified or prequalified.21 Six of the 26 purchasers responded no and 20 firms

responded yes. These latter 20 firms reported that they require one or more of the following from their

suppliers to be certified: (1) adherence to purchaser specifications, (2) independent product and plant

inspections, (3) a valid HACCP plan,22 (4) adherence to all federal and local guidelines regarding weights,

measure, and food safety, and (5) passing microbiological testing. The reported time period for

certification ranged from two days/several orders to one year and the factors considered were product

quality, service, reliability, availability, product consistently meets purchaser specifications, and price

competitiveness.

Purchasers were also requested to report if they had decertified any suppliers of certain frozen

fish fillets or any suppliers failed to become certified since 2003.23 Twenty-three of the 25 responding

purchasers responded no and 2 (both food service distributors) responded yes and provided additional

comments. *** reported that “when the FDA established the auto detention list regarding products from

China, any plants producing Ictalurus catfish in that country were decertified for sales to ***.” ***

reported that “*** were decertified because they mislabeled Vietnamese swai as the more expensive basa. 

In addition, *** was decertified because its imported certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam tested

positive for fluroquinolones; any time this type of incident occurs, the supplier is decertified until such

time as they can verify corrective actions and procedural changes to avoid the problem in the future.”

SUPPLY AND DEMAND CONSIDERATIONS24

U.S. Supply25

U.S. Production

Based on available information, U.S. processors may have had the ability to respond to changes

in U.S. demand with substantial changes in the quantity of shipments of U.S.-processed certain frozen

catfish fillets to the U.S. market during 2003-08. Factors contributing to this degree of responsiveness of

supply are discussed later in this section. Due to some seasonal supply factors, this ability to increase

shipments may be reduced somewhat in the summer; U.S. live farm-raised catfish supply tends to be the

lowest during the summer months when the amount of food-size fish in the ponds is lower and feeding is

the heaviest; in addition, the fish can be off-flavor during the summer due to various factors such as algae

growth, which delays the fish harvest until the fish flavor improves.26 Any processing shortfall during the

summer months may be offset by the availability of U.S. processors’ inventories of domestic frozen
 27 Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 60, fn. 242.

 28 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, sections IV-14, IV-21, and IV-22. 

 29 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-14.

 30 Fourteen other U.S. purchasers indicated that there were no changes in factors affecting supply of domestic

frozen catfish fillets since 2003.

 31 The specific comments of the responding firms are shown in appendix E.

 32 Hearing transcript, pp. 77-78 (Lowery and Rhodes) and pp. 104-105 (Lowery).

 33 Hearing transcript, p. 105 (Lowery).

II-6

catfish fillets;27 in addition, customers’ inventories may also mitigate somewhat any processing shortfall

during the summer.

A key factor hindering the U.S. processors’ ability to increase shipments has been a decreasing

supply of U.S. live farm-raised catfish during 2003-08. U.S. processors were requested to comment in

their questionnaire responses on the effects of price changes in raw materials and other factors on the

price and quantity of their frozen catfish fillets during 2003-08 and anticipated in the future.28 U.S.

purchasers were also requested to identify factors affecting supply of domestic frozen catfish fillets during

2003-08.29 Fifteen U.S. processors and 9 U.S. purchasers provided useable comments.30 The responding

firms generally cited increased costs of U.S. catfish farmers and processors of the frozen catfish fillets

that have largely led to higher prices of both the live and processed catfish, but has led to a decrease in

quantity supplied of both. The U.S. processors also generally asserted that the supply of domestic frozen

catfish fillets will decrease in the future.31

U.S. processors testified that catfish ponds have a useful life of 10-15 years. Rebuilding the

ponds entails a substantial cost, reportedly similar to the cost of converting the ponds to row crops, such

that catfish farmers have a long-term commitment when they rebuild their ponds.32 The witnesses also

indicated that if the outlook for profits for catfish were bleak for the next two or three years, the catfish

farmers would convert to row crops such as soybeans; this conversion reportedly already has taken place

in the Mississippi delta.33

Water-surface acres of U.S. catfish ponds during 1993-2008, and projected for 2009, are shown

in figure II-I. As shown in the figure, U.S. pond acreage generally increased from 152,140 acres in 1993

to a peak of 196,760 acres in 2002, and since then has declined steadily to a projected period low of

146,900 acres in 2009, or a decrease of 25.3 percent from the peak. At least some of this decline in pond

acreage likely occurred as catfish ponds that had reached the end of their life cycle were switched to row

crops.

Industry capacity

Based on responses of the U.S. processors of domestic frozen catfish fillets, total reported annual

capacity utilization for frozen catfish fillets fluctuated but decreased during 2003-08, by a total of 2.2

percentage points. The 7.5 percentage point improvement in capacity utilization during 2008 from that in

2007 occurred as production increased somewhat, but capacity fell by 8.0 percent from the level in 2007

and ended at a period low of 137.1 million pounds in 2008. The reported annual levels of capacity

utilization between 63.3 and 76.1 percent indicate that U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets had a

substantial amount of available capacity to increase production of frozen catfish fillets in the short run in

the event of a price change during 2003-08, provided that the supply of U.S. live farm-raised catfish were

available. 
 34 U.S. processors shipped their frozen catfish fillets only on a commercial basis to U.S. customers, as a result,

U.S. commercial shipments constituted total shipments.

 35 Some processors reported also processing other types of seafood such as salmon, tilapia, and shrimp.

II-7

Figure II-1

U.S. catfish pond acreage: U.S. catfish farmers’ total pond acreage, annually, 1993-2008 and

projection for 2009

Source: NASS, USDA, Monthly Catfish Report, various issues,

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/ViewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1015, retrieved May 7, 2009.

Inventory levels

U.S. processors reported their end-of-period inventory quantities of frozen catfish fillets, which

fluctuated but increased during 2003-08 in absolute amounts and as a share of total shipments.34 End-ofperiod inventories increased from approximately 7.5 million pounds, or 7.1 percent of total shipments, in

2003 to approximately 11.8 million pounds, or 12.5 percent of total shipments, in 2008. The flexibility to

use inventories to respond to price changes in the short run may be restrained to the extent that the U.S.

processors’ inventories consist of products that are not required by the increased demand, or consist of

products already committed to customers in the U.S. market. U.S. processors generally sell their frozen

catfish fillets on a spot basis, such that it is likely that the reported inventories were available to contribute

to their supply flexibility in the short run.

Alternate markets

U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets reported no substantial exports during 2003-08. As a

result, the lack of exports does not enhance the supply flexibility of U.S. processors.

Production alternatives

U.S. processors reported producing other products on their production equipment used to produce

frozen catfish fillets.35 Such other products included fresh catfish fillets and other catfish products; some

of the other catfish products could be considered by-products and therefore these latter
 36 U.S. imports of frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam increased steadily from 19.7 million pounds in 2003 to

a period high of 53.5 million pounds by 2006, for a total increase of 171.9 percent, before fluctuating and ending at

53.3 million pounds in 2008. 

 37 A U.S. purchaser, ***, reported that harvest cycles for imported Pangasius and catfish affect availability and

the market several times a year; the duration would be more than two and less than four months beginning around

early April to mid August. U.S. purchaser questionnaire response, III-16.

 38 U.S. importer questionnaire responses, section III-16.

 39 ***, were among the three importers expecting an increase in U.S. imports of frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam in the future. 

II-8

products would not involve switching production between frozen catfish fillets and these products. U.S.

processors produce approximately twice as much frozen catfish fillets as fresh catfish fillets. The ability

of the U.S. processors to shift production between frozen catfish fillets and fresh catfish fillets, as well as

other types of fish, enhances their supply responsiveness in the short run in response to relative price

changes between frozen catfish fillets and some combination of fresh catfish fillets and other types of

fish.

Imports from Vietnam

U.S. imports of frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam increased by a total of 170.7 percent in

quantity during 2003-08.36 However, based on publically available information, staff believes that

Vietnamese processors have the capability to respond to changes in demand with relatively large changes

in shipments of the Vietnamese frozen basa and tra fillets to the U.S. market.37 Because only one

Vietnamese producer provided a questionnaire response to the Commission, discussion of the specific

factors that contribute to the responsiveness of supply would not be meaningful.

U.S. importers of certain frozen fish fillets were requested to discuss the future availability of the

Vietnamese certain frozen fish fillets in the U.S. market.38 Eleven U.S. importers responded, with 3

indicating an increase,39 2 indicating a decrease, 5 indicating no change, and 1 indicating that it did not

know. Four of the five firms reporting a change in the future availability provided the following

comments. The *** reporting importer of frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam asserting an increase,

***, stated that--

“Our company anticipates an “increase” in supply in the U.S. market of certain frozen

fish fillets imported from Vietnam. The reason for increase is that the fish fillets have

become well known as a whitefish fillet item to the seafood commodity trade. Because

of its flavor profile and ease of cooking methods, many consumers and restaurants are

finding interest in the fillets. In addition, wild whitefish species have been drastically

reduced, therefore aquaculture species are filling the void.”

Another importer asserting an increase, ***, stated that “with the number of shipper reviews achieving

zero recently, we have seen a significant increase in product availability and downward price pressure.” 

The remaining importer asserting an increase, *** ***, stated that “within 2-3 years U.S. consumption of

the frozen basa and tra fillets will increase at least 10 percent.” One of the importers asserting a decrease,

***, stated that-- 

“The U.S.D.A. has signaled its intent to include the Pangasius species in its definition of

“catfish,” which is contrary to the definition established in the 2002 Farm Bill.”
 40 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-23a and III-17a, respectively.

 41 One of these four importers, ***, asserted that “the increase in transshipped product from Vietnam via Thailand

to avoid duty has put price pressure on the “real” Vietnam duty-paid products. Vietnam may be the only real source

for the product, because other countries do not have production capacity to meet in-country demand.”

 42 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-23b and III-17b, respectively.

 43 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-23c and III-17c, respectively.

 44 One of the importers indicating increased future availability of certain frozen fish fillets from nonsubject

countries, ***, asserted that transshipped product will continue to increase until action is taken to halt such trade.

II-9

The remaining importer reporting a future decrease, ***, cited market conditions and the economy as

reasons.

Imports from Nonsubject Countries

U.S. imports of certain frozen fish fillets from countries other than Vietnam increased markedly

from less than 1.2 million pounds in 2003 to more than 44.1 million pounds in 2008, or by 3,651.6

percent. China was the leading nonsubject import source by far during 2003-08, followed by 16 other

countries, including, in descending order, Thailand, Cambodia, and Indonesia as the next largest

nonsubject country suppliers of certain frozen fish fillets.

U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and U.S. importers of the frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra

fillets were requested to discuss how the availability in the U.S. market of certain frozen fish fillets from

nonsubject countries changed during 2003-08.40 Eleven of the 15 responding U.S. processors and 7 of the

11 responding importers indicated that the availability of certain frozen fish fillets from nonsubject

countries increased in the U.S. market during 2003-08. Two U.S. processors and the remaining 4 U.S.

importers indicated that such availability had not increased,41 and the 2 remaining U.S. processors did not

know how such imports changed in the U.S. market. Of the 18 responding firms that indicated an

increase, a total of 10 firms identified frozen catfish fillets from China, whereas the remaining firms did

not identify specific countries with types of certain frozen fish fillets.

U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and U.S. importers of certain frozen fish fillets were also

asked to identify the top three nonsubject country sources of certain frozen fish fillets to the U.S. market

during 2003-08.42 As seen in the tabulation of responses on the following page, China was identified

most frequently as the largest nonsubject country supplier of certain frozen fish fillets to the U.S. market

during 2003-08, followed in descending order by Thailand and Cambodia.

U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and U.S. importers of certain frozen fish fillets were also

asked to comment on any anticipated changes in the future in the availability of imported certain frozen

fish fillets from nonsubject countries to the U.S. market.43 Nine U.S. importers responded, but no U.S.

processors responded. Four of the nine responding U.S. importers reported no expected future changes,

whereas the remaining five U.S. importers reported that they expected changes in the future, either

increased availability from non-Vietnamese sources (such as Thailand, Philippines and Cambodia)44 or

decreased availability as a result of changes in the U.S. inspection regime.
 45 E-mail from ***. In addition, three U.S. purchases identified the six weeks of Lent as a period of increased

demand for all fish, including certain frozen fish fillets. U.S. purchaser questionnaire response, section III-16.

 46 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section II-9.

II-10

Number of responses for each nonsubject country source

Country U.S. processors U.S. importers Total

Top sources:

China1 10 3 13

Thailand 2 3 5

Central America - 1 1

Second largest sources:

Cambodia 3 1 4

China1 2 35

Mexico 2 - 2

Thailand 2 1 3

Third largest sources:

Cambodia 1 1 2

Central America 1 - 1

China1 1 -1

Mexico 2 - 2

Indonesia - 1 1

Malaysia - 1 1

 1 Many firms specified frozen catfish fillets from China.

U.S. Demand

Demand for certain frozen fish fillets, as measured by annual apparent U.S. consumption,

fluctuated during 2003-08, but increased by 31.4 percent on a quantity basis during this period.

Overall U.S. demand for certain frozen fish fillets, a consumer product, likely moves with general

economic activity in the U.S. economy and with demand in the sectors were it is purchased by consumers,

primarily the restaurant and grocery store sectors. U.S. demand for certain frozen fish fillets also exhibits

some seasonal variation, as demand is reportedly high during the Lenten pre-Easter season and low

during the holiday months of November and December.45 Eight of 16 responding U.S. processors also

reported seasonality in their operations. Lent was reportedly the high-point in demand for certain frozen

fish fillets, then sales decline after May until September and October, but then fall off in November and

December as the low point in demand. The remaining 8 processors reported that no fluctuations exist.46
 47 U.S. purchasers were requested to comment whether the market for certain frozen fish fillets was subject to

business cycles. Twenty-two firms provided useable responses regarding demand; 19 firms reported no and the

remaining three firms provided comments regarding seasonality that were discussed above. U.S. purchaser

questionnaire responses, section III-16.

 48 For 2003-07, Economic Report of the President, U.S. Government Printing Office, Table B-13, p. 300; and for

2008, Blue Chip Economic Indicators, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Vol. 34, No. 5, May 10, 2009, p. 2. Real GDP grew

at annual rates in the first two quarters of 2008, but declined in the final two quarters; in 2008, real GDP changed at

the following annual rates from the previous quarter: 0.9 percent increase in the first quarter, 2.8 percent increase in

the second quarter, -0.5 percent decrease in the third quarter, and -6.3 percent decrease in the fourth quarter (Blue

Chip Economic Indicators, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Vol. 34, No. 5, May 10, 2009, p. 5). Real GDP decreased -5.7

percent (annual rate) in the first quarter of 2009 from the prior quarter (http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national,

retrieved May, 29, 2009). 

 49 Blue Chip Economic Indicators, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Vol. 34, No. 5, May 10, 2009, pp. 2-3.

 50 Nominal values were deflated by the quarterly price index for the component of Gross Domestic Product

involving personal consumption expenditures for food in the nondurable goods category reported by the U.S. Bureau

of Economic Analysis (BEA). The base year for the price index was 2000=100; as a result, real quarterly values are

in 2000 dollars, with the impact of inflation removed or minimized from the food retailers’ sales figures. Quarterly

nominal sales values were calculated as simple averages of monthly nominal sales values reported by BEA.

 51 Comparing same-quarter real sales values of full-service restaurants during 2007-08 showed decreases from

2007 to 2008 in each quarter. 

 52 At least part of this decline may have been due to seasonal demand factors.

 53 Hearing transcript, pp. 75-76 (Rhodes and Walker).

II-11

Business Cycles47

U.S. real gross domestic product (GDP) increased by 2.5 percent in 2003, by 3.6 percent in 2004,

3.1 percent in 2005, 2.9 percent in 2006, 2.2 percent in 2007, and 1.1 percent in 2008.48 Real GDP is

forecast to decrease by 2.8 percent in 2009 and increase by 1.9 percent in 2010.49

Nominal and real quarterly values of U.S. sales at full-service restaurants and grocery stores

during January 2003-December 2008 are shown in figure II-2.50 Quarterly sales values for both types of

retailers fluctuated but generally increased during 2003-08, but the nominal sales figures for both types of

retailers increased more than the comparable real sales figures during this period.

Nominal sales values at full-service restaurants increased from $12.1 billion during JanuaryMarch 2003 to $16.5 billion during October-December 2008, or by a total of 36.7 percent; real sales

values, however, increased by a total of only 12.0 percent during this period. Quarterly real sales values

at the restaurants reached a period high of $13.7 billion during April-June 2007 and then fluctuated but

generally decreased to end at $12.8 billion during October-December 2008, or a decrease of a total of 6.9

percent from the period high during this period.51 Domestic interested parties asserted that, beginning in

November 2008 and through the middle of January 2009, sales of their domestic frozen catfish fillets to

restaurant chains declined sharply.52 In addition, domestic interested parties indicated that the National

Restaurant Association reported restaurant sales were off by about 20 percent. Domestic interested

parties also asserted that since mid-January 2009 their sales to restaurants are back to normal.53

Nominal sales values at grocery stores increased from $34.4 billion during January-March 2003

to $44.6 billion during October-December 2008, or by a total of 29.5 percent; real sales values, however,

increased by a total of only 6.1 percent during this period. Quarterly real sales values at grocery stores

reached a period high of $35.7 billion during October-December 2007 and then fluctuated but generally 
II-12

Figure II-2

Sectoral U.S. sales values: Nominal and real U.S. sales values of full-service restaurants and

grocery stores, by quarters, during January 2003-December 2008

Note.--Real values based on 2000=100.

Source: Monthly Retail Trade Survey, Census Bureau, DOC, 

http://www.census.gov/mrts/www/data/excel/mrtssales92-09.xls, retrieved March 24, 2009; and Price Indexes for

Gross Domestic Product, Expanded Detail, Bureau of Economic Analysis, DOC, http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb,

retrieved April 2, 2009.
 54 Comparing same-quarter real sales values of grocery stores during 2007-08 showed a decrease from 2007 to

2008 in only the fourth quarter, when real GDP contracted at an annual rate of 6.3 percent from the previous quarter. 

 55 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-15a/IV-16a, III-20a/III-21a, and

III-11a/III-12a, respectively.

 56 A number of U.S. processors responded only for the domestic frozen catfish fillets, which were not shown,

because the question was referring to all certain frozen fish fillets and not just a particular species. 

II-13

decreased to end at $34.5 billion during October-December 2008, 3.3 percent lower than the period

high.54

Questionnaire Responses Concerning Changes in U.S. Demand

U.S. processors, importers, and purchasers were requested to indicate whether U.S. demand for

certain frozen fish fillets increased, decreased, fluctuated, or did not change since January 2003 and how

they anticipate this demand will change in the future.55 Responses were mixed regarding U.S. demand. 

Useable responses are summarized in the following tabulation.56

U.S. demand changes for certain frozen fish fillets

Types of firms

Number of firms responding

Increase Decrease Fluctuate No change

U.S. demand changes since January 2003

U.S. processors1 32 1 1

U.S. importers 6 - 5 1

U.S. purchasers 12 3 4 5

Total 21 5 10 7

U.S. demand changes anticipated in the future

U.S. processors2 1- - 3

U.S. importers3 6- 21

U.S. purchasers 9 2 3 10

Total 16 2 5 14

 1 In addition, one other U.S. processor reported that it did not know how U.S. demand changed.

 2

 In addition, two other U.S. processors reported that they did not know how U.S. demand would

change in the future.

 3

 In addition, one other U.S. importer reported that it did not know how U.S. demand would change in

the future.

The majority of all questionnaire responses, led principally by purchasers, indicate that U.S.

demand for certain frozen fish fillets has increased since January 2003, but the majority of responses for

anticipated future U.S. demand, again led principally by purchasers, indicate a split between increased

future demand and no change in future demand.

With regard to historical U.S. demand for certain frozen fish fillets, the responding firms that

indicated increased demand cited a number of reasons, including a healthier food choice, increase in
 57 One of the firms that reported that it anticipated future demand, ***, a food service distributor, provided the

following comment: “Demand for Pangasius will grow as it becomes known as a stand-alone product with its own

positive characteristics. Likewise, the demand for Chinese-grown catfish will increase as consumers discover it as a

competitive alternative to domestic catfish. Domestic catfish growth is constrained by the limits of the aquaculture

base and by the current economic crisis.”

 58 U.S. processor *** gave the following explanation for its anticipation of fluctuating demand: “The recession

can affect future demand in ways we do not know at this time. Customers can reduce the frequency of dining out,

and large buyers can go bankrupt. As a result, the market could be more volatile.” 

 59 One U.S. processor that cited no future change in demand, ***, indicated that if live fish prices and other

expenses increase too much, people will opt for other fish and/or for meat.

II-14

availability, affordability, mild tasting product continues to gain consumer acceptance, higher

prices/tighter quotas for wild whitefish, increased marketing of the imported frozen basa and tra from

Vietnam, and increased demand in the food service sector due to value pricing. The responding firms that

indicated decreased demand cited lower pricing of substitutes, such as tilapia, selling price and

availability, and low customer demand. The responding firms that indicated fluctuating demand cited 

reasons as price, availability, trade barriers, aquaculture cycles, regulatory compliance, and food safety

scares. The responding firms that indicated no change in demand typically did not cite reasons except for 

importer ***, which stated “the dumping duty created hurdles to get the fish to the United States, so

initially sales slowed, but naming guidelines changed the appeal of the fish.”

Concerning future U.S. demand for certain frozen fish fillets, the responding firms that anticipate

increased future demand cited a number of reasons, including the concern that wild whitefish may not be

as sustainable, the continuing growth of aquaculture throughout the world, healthier eating habits, better

food safety, the economy will continue to drive consumers to lower cost items, and maturing of the babyboom generation.57 The responding firms that anticipate decreased future demand cited lower pricing of

substitutes and legislative impediments of imported products via the 2008 Farm Bill will increase prices

of all certain frozen fish fillets. The responding firms that anticipate fluctuating future demand cited

several reasons including, perceived value of other products, availability of substitutes, population

change, economic conditions, FDA regulations, price, and availability.58 The responding firms that

anticipate no change in demand typically did not cite reasons other than to note that flat sales were

expected due to the economy.59

Substitute Products

Based on available information, U.S. distributors, restaurants, grocery stores, and consumers are

likely to respond to changes in the price of certain frozen fish fillets with small to moderate changes in

their purchases of certain frozen fish fillets, such that U.S. demand may be somewhat price inelastic or

price elastic. The main contributing factor to this level of responsiveness of demand is the existence of

substitutes for certain frozen fish fillets, but also contributing may be the moderate cost share in that part

of consumer food budgets where items are purchased with protein content in mind and/or the main course

of a meal is considered. On the other hand, consumer preferences and “Buy America” policies/practices

may tend to reduce the price elasticity of demand. In addition, because consumers reportedly like variety

in their consumption of whitefish fillets, it is possible that the alternatives may also be complements to

certain frozen catfish fillets.

Substitutes for certain frozen fish fillets

U.S. processors, importers, and purchasers were requested to comment on substitutes for certain

frozen fish fillets in the U.S. market during 2003-08, and on any changes in substitutes during this
 60 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-11-12, III-11-12, and III-5-6,

respectively.

 61 U.S. processors, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers were also asked whether there were changes in substitutes

for certain frozen fish fillets in the U.S. market during 2003-08 (U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser

questionnaire responses, sections IV-12, III-12, and III-6, respectively). Ten U.S. processors, eight importers, and

23 purchasers provided useable responses. Six of the 10 responding processors and all of the responding importers

and purchasers reported no changes. The four remaining U.S. processors cited increased volumes of tilapia, from

China and South America, during 2003-08. One of these four U.S. processors, ***, reported that, as sales of tilapia

increased, sales of domestic frozen catfish fillets have trended downward.

II-15

period.60 Fourteen U.S. processors, six U.S. importers, and 23 U.S. purchasers provided useable

responses for substitutes during 2003-08. Five of the responding U.S. processors, five responding

importers, and 17 of the responding purchasers reported that no substitutes exist. The remaining nine

U.S. processors, one importer, and six purchasers identified substitute products. The alternative products

and the number of responses identifying the products are shown in the following tabulation.

Substitutes/alternatives for certain frozen fish fillets

(Number of responses)

Type of fish

U.S.

processors

U.S.

importer

U.S.

purchasers Total

 Tilapia 9 1 6 16

 Cod 1 - 3 4

 Pollock 2 - 2 4

 Flounder - - 2 2

 Sole 1 - 1 2

 Hoki - - 1 1

 Orange roughy - - 1 1

 Ponga - - 1 1

 Whiting - - 1 1

 Total 13 1 18 32

Note.–Some responding firms reported more than one alternative product.

Tilapia was by far the most frequently cited alternative to certain frozen fish fillets, followed by 

cod, pollock, flounder, sole, and then the other whitefish identified above.61 Eight U.S. processors and

two U.S. purchasers provided follow-up comments on the alternatives, especially concerning tilapia. 

These firms generally asserted that (1) tilapia, especially from China, is high-volume and low-priced, and

(2) competition with the alternative whitefish can be intense, especially for sales to food service

establishments.

U.S. purchasers were also requested to discuss to what extent prices of other types of frozen

whitefish are relevant or used as leverage when negotiating prices and volumes of certain frozen fish
 62 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-8.

 63 The remaining 3 responding purchasers provided the following responses. ***, a wholesale distributor,

reported that “market demand factors of price, quality, and regional preferences determine sales.” ***, a grocery

chain, stated that “we have never utilized the market price of these items when negotiating price. Although the end

use is similar, they are distinct products. In most cases, the expectation of variety on the part of the customer forces

you to carry most of the products. If you were selecting only one or two to use, the leverage would be there. Since

most are offering several of the products, the price of each is maximized against itself.” ***, a wholesale distributor,

stated that “fish in the same price range (tilapia and pollock) affect negotiations.”

 64 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-13, III-13, and III-7, respectively.

 65 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, sections III-9 and III-10.

 66 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-11-13 and III-11-13, respectively. 

 67 Two of the four purchasers asserting that these products are substitutes for each other made the following

comments. ***, a restaurant, asserted that “the basa and tra fillets are similar to the catfish fillets when fried; it is

hard to tell them apart.” ***, a grocery chain, asserted that “they are as substitutable as any other mild, whitefish

fillet. For the end use in mind-–frozen or refreshed fillets to the customer or for processor use in making value

added items-–catfish fillets are just as easily used as any other whitefish. The price of catfish also keeps it in line

with basa or tra versus a product such as cod or haddock, which will be much more expensive.”

*** also indicated that, in recent years, Vietnamese production and exports have shifted from basa, which is

considered to have better texture and flavor, to tra (swai), a faster growing alternative. According to ***, labeling

and marketplace distinctions between basa and tra are the “biggest improvements” that have occurred in the U.S.

market in recent years. *** purchaser questionnaire responses, sections I-7, III-36, and IV-6.

 68 One of these 20 responding purchasers, ***, a food service distributor, provided the following detailed

comments.

“Basa and tra are milder than channel catfish. Catfish has an inherent “earthy” flavor that the

catfish customer expects and is used to. The forced name change by the FDA to basa/swai has

been a blessing. Basa is now a recognized name in the marketplace, and salesmen are able to sell

basa on its own merits and attributes. The consumer no longer confuses it with domestic catfish

and recognizes the value of this mild tasting, tender whitefish.”

II-16

fillets.62 Of the 14 responding purchasers, 11 asserted that prices of these other whitefish are not used as

leverage.63

Six U.S. processors, 8 U.S. importers, and 24 U.S. purchasers provided useable responses

concerning any anticipated changes in substitutes for certain frozen fish fillets in the future.64 All of the

responding firms reported that they anticipate no changes in substitutes in the future.

Substitution among various species/types of certain frozen fish fillets

U.S. purchasers were requested to discuss substitution among various species/types of certain

frozen fish fillets.65 U.S. processors and importers also commented on such substitutions in their

responses to requests to discuss substitution between certain frozen fish fillets and alternative fish;66 these

latter comments also will be discussed here.

Frozen fillets of basa and tra versus frozen fillets of catfish.–Of the 24 responding purchasers,

20 asserted that these products were not substitutable for each other, whereas the 4 remaining purchasers

asserted that they were substitutable.67 Most of the 20 firms reporting no substitution cited labeling laws,

but some also noted differences in taste and texture and differences in consumer preferences.68
 69 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-11 and III-11, respectively.

 70 *** purchaser questionnaire response, section IV-9.

 71 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-10.

 72 Ibid.

II-17

Eight U.S. processors and two U.S. importers asserted that frozen fillets of basa and tra were

substitutes for domestic frozen catfish fillets in the U.S. market.69 Many of these firms reported that

frozen fillets of basa and tra were priced lower than the domestic frozen catfish fillets and this put

downward pressure on prices of the domestic product. Some reported that prices of the imported products

were 35-40 percent less than prices of the domestic products and some indicated a $1.00 per pound

difference. On the other hand, ***, a U.S. purchaser stated that domestic frozen catfish fillets are priced

lower than the imported frozen basa fillets from Vietnam, but the domestic fish are priced higher than the

imported frozen tra fillets from Vietnam.70

Frozen fillets of catfish from China versus frozen fillets of domestic catfish.–Although not

specifically asked about this comparison, five U.S. processors, three U.S. importers, and two U.S.

purchasers commented on the substitutability between these two different sources of catfish in the U.S.

market during 2003-08. All of the responding firms asserted that the domestic frozen catfish fillets were

substitutable for the imported frozen catfish fillets from China, although one of the responding

purchasers, ***, a food service distributor, asserted that the domestic product is used and not substitutable

when customer preferences, law, food safety concerns, or “Buy America” concerns dominate.

Frozen fillets of wild-caught catfish versus frozen fillets from farm-raised basa and tra.–All 23

responding purchasers indicated that these two products are not substitutable.71 Many of the firms cited

limited quantities of wild-caught catfish. One of the responding purchasers, ***, a grocery chain,

provided the following additional comment: “Flavor, texture, and quality characteristics are too

inconsistent in this particular wild fish. The nature of this fish’s eating habits leads to off flavor (muddy)

and soft texture. It is not a suitable substitute.”

Frozen fillets of wild-caught catfish versus frozen fillets from farm-raised catfish.–The same 23

purchasers responded, as above, and indicated that these two products were not substitutable, citing the

same reasons as discussed above.72

Cost Share

The cost share of certain frozen fish fillets relative to the overall consumer budget for food is

likely low, but is larger based on that part of the food budget where protein content and the main course

of a meal are considered.

SUBSTITUTABILITY ISSUES

The degree of substitution in demand between frozen catfish fillets produced in the United States

and frozen basa and tra fillets imported from Vietnam depends upon such factors as relative prices,

conditions of sales (order lead times, payment terms etc.), purchaser supply requirements, qualified status

of supplier, and product differentiation. Product differentiation depends on factors such as the range of

products (size and type of frozen fillets), quality (grade standards, defect rates, product consistency, etc.),

consumer preference, taste and texture, availability, reliability of supply, product services, and the market
 73 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-15.

 74 Two of these four responding firms, ***, were unable to report their purchase shares for “Buy America”

purposes; as a result the purchase share for this category is likely understated. Domestic interested parties estimated

that approximately 3 percent of their total sales of frozen catfish fillets are based on “Buy America” policies. 

Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, p. 11. 

 75 Likely double counting may affect these combined purchase shares (all three preference categories), but it is

not known by how much or in which direction. On the other hand, ***, which responded for the “Buy America”

provisions and for customer preferences, were unable to report their affected purchase shares. As a result, the

combined purchase shares favoring the domestic frozen catfish fillets are likely understated. 

 76 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-16.

 77 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-17/18 and III-18/19, respectively.

II-18

perception of these factors. Based on the reported information in this review, there appears to be at least

moderate substitution in demand between domestic frozen catfish fillets and the frozen basa and tra fillets

from Vietnam.

U.S. purchasers of certain frozen fish fillets were requested to indicate and explain if buying the

domestic frozen catfish fillets is important to their firm.73 Of the 26 responding purchasers, 15 indicated

that buying the domestic product was important, whereas the remaining 11 purchasers indicated that this

was not important. Four purchasers reported that purchases of the domestic products were required by

law or regulation and, for the two firms reporting their affected purchase shares, ranged from 15 to 33

percent of their purchases of certain frozen fish fillets for this reason.74 Seven purchasers plus two of the

four purchasers cited in the previous sentence reported that purchases of the domestic product was not a

matter of law or regulation but was preferred by their customers; based on the seven firms reporting

purchase shares, purchases of the domestic product for this reason ranged from 49-100 percent of these

firms’ purchases of certain frozen fish fillets. Four other purchasers reported buying the domestic frozen

catfish fillets for logistical purposes and to support the domestic industry; such purchases of the domestic

product ranged from 61-100 percent of the total purchases of certain frozen fish fillets of the three firms

reporting purchase shares. The total reported shares of domestic frozen catfish fillets that were purchased

based on “Buy America” laws or practices, customer preferences, and for other reasons accounted for

approximately 31.0 percent of total reported purchases of the domestic product and 19.2 percent of total

reported purchases of all certain frozen fish fillets during 2003-08.75

U.S. purchasers were also requested to comment on the emergence of new markets for certain

frozen fish fillets and whether this has changed conditions of competition for this product in the U.S.

market since 2003.76 Of the 25 responding purchasers, 16 responded that there were no new markets,

whereas the remaining 9 purchasers reported that new markets had developed. New U.S. markets

included catfish from China and an increased demand for frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam, due to

the affordable price and overall quality of these latter products.

U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and U.S. importers of the subject certain frozen fish fillets

were requested to describe any significant changes in the product range or marketing of their products in

the United States since January 2003 and any changes they anticipate in the future.77 Sixteen U.S.

processors and 11 U.S. importers responded, but not necessarily for both the historical period and future

period. For any product/marketing changes since January 2003, 10 U.S. processors identified changes

while 6 indicated no changes or did not know, whereas four U.S. importers identified changes and seven

indicated no changes. For any product/marketing changes anticipated in the future, eight U.S. processors

identified future changes and eight U.S. processors indicated no future changes, whereas two U.S.

importers identified future changes and eight U.S. importers indicated no future changes.
 78 Three U.S. processors, ***, noted that the value-added market is much smaller than the commodity fish market.

 79 This website may be recent; none of the responding purchasers reported purchasing certain frozen fish fillets

over the internet during 2003-08.

 80 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-36.

 81 ***, a grocery chain, asserted that over the years basa and tra (the latter also known as swai and sutchi) have

become separate items in the U.S. market.

 82 ***, a food service distributor, asserted that the parties who lobbied successfully to have Pangasius re-named in

order to segregate it from their domestic product are now seeking to include it in the regulatory scope of the USDA

as a “catfish like” or “whiskered fish” species. “If their effort is successful, there will certainly be a sizable

reduction of imports until those overseas resource areas are certified compliant to USDA standards. However, we do

not expect this trade disruption to be any more successful than the previous attempts have been. Certainly, we see

no short-term impact of these moves, as the domestic catfish industry faces a major challenge to raise its own

practices to meet USDA standards.”

II-19

Changes since January 2003 identified by U.S. processors involved the following: (1) selling

more fresh fillets and higher value-added fillets, such as traypack, breaded, and par-fried;78 (2) fillets are

being cut into strips more often; (3) quantity of the U.S. processed 2-3 ounce fillet, which reportedly is

more desirable than the large fillets, has dropped considerably due to lower price of this size fillet from

Vietnam; (4) increased marketing of domestic frozen catfish fillets as U.S. processed farm-raised

products; and one U.S. processor, ***, reported that it had established a website for internet sales.79

Three of the four U.S. importers commenting on changes since 2003 asserted that (1) the availability of

certain frozen fish fillets has increased to meet market demand, (2) U.S. processors are offering products

over the internet, and (3) transshipment of frozen basa and tra fillets. The remaining importer

commenting on historical changes, *** provided the following discussion:

“There have been significant changes in the product range and mix of certain frozen fish

fillets since 2003. The product range change is most of the imports are Pangasius

Hypopthalmus (market name referred to as Swai or Striped Pangasius) rather than

Pangasius Bocourti (market name is Basa). Most purchasers were familiar with Basa, but

Basa production from Vietnam became very limited, therefore *** of imports coming

into the United States is Swai (Striped Pangasius).”

Both U.S. processors and importers that commented on product/marketing changes anticipated in the

future indicated that the historical changes identified above would continue in the future.

Ten U.S. purchasers of certain frozen fish fillets provided comments describing

improvements/changes in the U.S. certain frozen fish fillet market since January 2003 and any

improvements/changes they anticipate in the future; not all responding firms commented on both

historical and anticipated improvements/changes.80 Purchaser comments of changes/improvements since

2003 included (1) disappearance of basa, (2) HACCP certification, (3) more consistent price due to the

order, (4) correct labeling and distinction between basa and swai,81 (5) proof that catfish are U.S. farm

raised, (6) higher quality of certain frozen fish fillets, (7) overseas producers sought other markets

(particularly Europe), (8) opened the door in the United States for channel catfish grown in China, and (9)

Pangasius increased U.S. market share by embracing its differences from the domestic frozen catfish

fillets. Purchaser comments of changes/improvements that are anticipated in the future included (1)

economy will keep the market flat, (2) change in sustainability and environmental impact of domestic

industry, (3) expanded use of value-added products such as breaded, battered, marinated, etc., (4) more

government inspections, and (5) USDA will regulate the catfish industry, reducing imported catfish from

China and Pangasius as well.82
 83 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-37.

 84 ***, a food service distributor asserted that “the individual state bans have been most effective as they are

easier to pass and ultimately driven by local sentiment. Similarly, attempts at creating food safety concerns around

antibiotic residues have been more successful at the state level, where the interpretation of tolerance levels and

technical capability are more subjective. Menu labeling restrictions and country of origin labeling have been the

least successful local measures due to the difficulty of driving compliance at the individual operator level.”

 85 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-29.

II-20

Finally, U.S. purchasers were requested to discuss the effects and effectiveness of U.S. federal

and state “catfish” labeling laws enacted after 2001.83 Of the fifteen responding purchasers, 8 reported

some effects/effectiveness and the remaining 7 firms reported no effects. The comments of the

responding firms that reported some effects included (1) helped U.S. processors upscale their product, (2)

enabled domestic and imported certain frozen fish fillets to be marketed and sold on each of their own

merits, (3) leveled the playing field, (4) individual state bans on the imported certain frozen fish fillets

have been most effective.84

Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions

Purchasers were requested to list the top three purchase factors that they consider when deciding

from whom to purchase certain frozen fish fillets.85 Responses of the 25 reporting purchasers, which did

not necessarily respond for each level of importance and sometimes reported for more than one purchase

factor in a specific rank, are shown in the following tabulation.

Factors 

Number of purchasers responding

First

important

factor

Second

important

factor

Third

important

factor

Quality 13 8 2

Price 5 5 6

Availability 2 8 8

Traditional supplier 4 1 4

Product consistency 1 1 -

Food safety program 1 - -

Accurate net weight - - 1

Payment terms - - 1

Service - - 1

As shown in the tabulation, quality was reported most frequently as the most important factor,

quality and availability were reported most frequently as the second important factor, and availability and

price were reported most frequently as the third important factor. Purchasers reported that quality

considerations included net weight, meet purchaser specifications, age, undamaged, color, odor, size,
 86 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-30.

 87 U.S. purchaser questionnaire response, section III-28.

 88 Quality, availability, and price, in descending order, were reported as the top purchase factors in another part of

the purchaser questionnaire and were discussed earlier.

II-21

taste, texture, belly flap and fat line removed, freshness (package date), episodes of freezing, excludes

antibiotics, and verified micro and macro chemicals.86

Twenty-five U.S. purchasers also responded to a request to rank 15 specified purchase factors as

very important, somewhat important, or not important.87 The total number of responses is shown in table

II-2 for each purchase factor. Four purchase factors--availability, product quality meets standards,

reliable supply, and product consistency--were considered most frequently to be very important purchase

factors for certain frozen fish fillets.88 Packaging, product range, and U.S. transportation costs were

considered most frequently to be somewhat important, and extension of credit and minimum quantity

requirements were reported most frequently to be not important.

Table II-2

Certain frozen fish fillets: Ranking of purchase factors, as reported by U.S. purchasers of certain frozen fish

fillets

Purchase factors Very important1 Somewhat important Not important

Availability * 24 1 -

Delivery terms 15 9 1

Delivery time 14 10 1

Discounts offered 7 8 10

Extension of credit 4 9 12

Price * 17 8 -

Minimum quantity requirements 7 6 12

Packaging 11 12 2

Product consistency 23 2 -

Product quality meets standards * 24 1 -

Product quality exceeds standards 20 5 -

Product range 8 12 5

Reliable supply 24 1 -

Technical support 8 10 7

U.S. transportation costs 6 12 7

 1 Two purchasers, both food-service distributors, identified other factors as very important. *** cited paperwork/insurance and

plant facilities; *** identified food safety (no antibiotics), compliance with trade legislation, and economic integrity of the supplier. 

Note.–The top 3 purchase factors as discussed earlier are identified with asterisks.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 89 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-28, III-25, and IV-3, respectively.

 90 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-29 and III-26, respectively. Each responding

firms did not necessarily report for all specified country comparisons.

 91 Responding U.S. processors of the frozen catfish fillets and importers of frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra fillets

generally reported that imported frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam were always or frequently interchangeable

in the United States with the imported certain frozen fish fillets from China, Malaysia, Thailand, and other countries

(table II-3b). On the other hand, the responding U.S. purchasers reported that imported frozen basa and tra fillets

from Vietnam were about equally likely to be always/frequently or sometimes/never interchangeable in the United

States with the imported certain frozen fish fillets from China, Malaysia, Thailand, and other countries (table II-3b).

 92 Responding U.S. processors of the frozen catfish fillets and importers of frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra fillets

generally reported that nonprice factors were always or frequently important in competition between imported frozen

basa and tra fillets from Vietnam and the imported certain frozen fish fillets from China, but that nonprice factors

were sometimes or never important in competition between the imported subject products from Vietnam and the

subject imported products from Malaysia, Thailand, and other countries (table II-4b).

II-22

Comparisons of the Domestic Products, Subject Imports from Vietnam, and

Subject Products from Third Countries

U.S. processors, importers, and purchasers of frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra fillets were requested

in their questionnaire responses to report on the extent of interchangeability among the various country

sources of certain frozen fish fillets.89 In addition, U.S. processors and importers were requested to report

on the extent of any differences other than price that would affect sales in the U.S. market among the

various country sources of certain frozen fish fillets.90

Responses of the 13 reporting U.S. processors, 6 U.S. importers, and 20 U.S. purchasers

regarding the degree of interchangeability between domestic and imported frozen certain frozen fish

fillets are summarized in table II-3a for comparisons involving the U.S.-produced frozen catfish fillets

and imported frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra fillets. In addition, table II-3b shows comparisons of

interchangeability involving the imported frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam and the frozen catfish,

basa, and/or tra fillets from third countries.

Responses of the 12 reporting U.S. processors and 6 U.S. importers regarding differences other

than price affecting competition are summarized in table II-4a for comparisons involving the U.S.-

produced frozen catfish fillets and imported frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra fillets. In addition, table II-4b

shows comparisons of nonprice factors involving the imported frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam

and the frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra fillets from third countries.

Responding U.S. processors of the frozen catfish fillets and importers of the frozen catfish, basa,

and/or tra fillets generally reported that the domestic frozen catfish fillets were always or frequently

interchangeable in the United States with the imported certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, China,

Malaysia, Thailand, and other countries (table II-3a). On the other hand, the responding U.S. purchasers

generally reported that the domestic frozen catfish fillets were frequently interchangeable in the United

States with the imported certain frozen fish fillets from China, and sometimes or never interchangeable

with certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand, and other countries (table II-3a).91

Responding U.S. processors of the frozen catfish fillets and importers of the frozen catfish, basa,

and/or tra fillets generally reported that nonprice factors were always or frequently important in

competition between domestic frozen catfish fillets and the imported certain frozen fish fillets from

Vietnam and China, but only the U.S. processors reported similarly for Malaysia and Thailand (table II4a). However, importers generally reported that nonprice factors were sometimes or never important in

competition between the domestic frozen catfish fillets and the imported certain frozen fish fillets from

Malaysia, Thailand and other countries.92
II-23

Table II-3a

Certain frozen fish fillets: Perceived degree of interchangeability of U.S.-produced frozen catfish

fillets vis-a-vis (1) imported frozen basa and tra from Vietnam, and (2) imported frozen catfish,

basa, and/or tra from third countries, based on sales in the U.S. market during 2003-08

Country pair

Number of U.S.

processors’ responses

Number of U.S.

importers’ responses

Number of U.S.

purchasers’ responses1

A FS N A F S N A F S N

United States vs.--

 Vietnam 10 2 - 1 1 2 1 1 - 4 4 8

 China 9 2 - 1 2 3 1 - 2 8 3 6

 Malaysia 1 1 2 1 1 2 - - - 1 6 -

 Thailand 2 3 - 1 2 1 - - - 1 5 6

 Other countries2 -11 11 1 - - - 2 2 3

 1 The two largest reporting purchasers, ***, reported that the U.S. and imported Vietnamese certain frozen fish

fillets were respectively sometimes and never interchangeable. *** also reported the following: (1) *** reported

that the nature of basa and tra lend themselves to be substituted for catfish, and (2) *** reported that there was no

restriction against substituting catfish for basa and tra. U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-9.

 2

 None of the responding firms identified specific other countries.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-3b

Certain frozen fish fillets: Perceived degree of interchangeability of imported frozen basa and tra

from Vietnam vis-a-vis imported frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra from third countries, based on

sales in the U.S. market during 2003-08

Country pair

Number of U.S.

processors’ responses

Number of U.S.

importers’ responses

Number of U.S.

purchasers’ responses

A FS N A F S N A F S N

Vietnam vs.--

 China 8 2 - - - 2 2 - 4 3 4 5

 Malaysia 2 1 1 - - 3 - - 2 1 - 3

 Thailand 2 2 - - 1 2 - - 2 2 4 2

 Other countries1 11 - - - 2 - - 1 3 1 2

 1 None of the responding firms identified specific other countries.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
II-24

Table II-4a

Certain frozen fish fillets: Perceived degree of importance of differences in nonprice factors

between U.S.-produced frozen catfish fillets vis-a-vis (1) imported frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam, and (2) imported frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra imported from third countries, based on

sales in the U.S. market during 2003-08

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers’

responses

Number of U.S. importers’

responses

A F S N AF S N

United States vs.--

 Vietnam 5 2 5 - 2 2 1 -

 China 3 6 2 -14 1 -

 Malaysia 2 1 1 - - - 2 1

 Thailand 3 1 1 - - 1 2 1

 Other countries1 2 - 2 - -1 2 1

 1 None of the responding firms identified specific other countries.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Table II-4b

Certain frozen fish fillets: Perceived degree of importance of differences in nonprice factors

between imported frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam vis-a-vis imported frozen catfish, basa,

and/or tra imported from third countries, based on sales in the U.S. market during 2003-08

Country pair

Number of U.S. producers’

responses

Number of U.S. importers’

responses

A F S N AF S N

Vietnam vs.--

 China 2 2 1 - 1 3 1 -

 Malaysia - - 1 1 - - 2 1

 Thailand 1 1 1 1 - 1 2 1

 Other countries1 - - 1 - -1 2 1

 1 None of the responding firms identified specific other countries.

Note.--A = Always, F = Frequently, S = Sometimes, N = Never.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 93 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-28/29, III-25/26, and IV-3,

respectively.

 94 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-18.

 95 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-19.

 96 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-4.

 97 Four purchasers, ***, reported that a portion of the customer base, particularly in the South, have a historical

preference for domestic product, which is based on cultural norms and loyalty to the domestic industry. *** also

asserted that some U.S. customers, e.g., the military and government, are required to serve the domestic product.

 98 Three of the 16 purchasers, ***, reported that customers prefer the imported frozen basa and/or tra fillets from

Vietnam due to quality and freshness of the Vietnamese product, and one other purchaser, ***, cited familiarity and

relationships with the Vietnamese processors. Another purchaser, ***, asserted that Pangasius from Vietnam has

found favor in the U.S. market, not as a substitute for the domestic frozen catfish fillets, but as a distinct product in

its own right. Two purchasers, ***, cited customer preference for the imported frozen basa fillets from Vietnam. 

 99 Two U.S. purchasers, ***, indicated that some of their customers preferred the price and taste of the imported

frozen catfish fillets from China.

 100 U.S. purchaser questionnaire response, section IV-7.

II-25

Some of the responding U.S. processors, importers, and purchasers of the certain frozen fish

fillets provided useable narrative explanations, as requested, in their questionnaire responses regarding

the degree/importance of interchangeability and nonprice factors.93 Responses provided by the 16 firms

commenting (included U.S. processors, importers, and purchasers) included (1) availability and technical

support are occasionally factors, (2) taste and smell differences between the domestic and imported

Vietnamese products, (3) flavor differences between the domestic and imported Chinese products, (4)

quality issues with some imports from China, (5) some customers prefer domestic catfish and some prefer

basa, (6) Pangasius, due to higher fat content, is not as firm as the domestic product, (7) product generally

is accepted or rejected based on its merits, not country of origin, (8) fresher and higher quality domestic

product, and (9) U.S. processors can more easily replace off-flavor fillets.

Country of origin and producer identity appear to be important for U.S. purchasers of frozen

catfish, basa, and tra fillets. Fifteen of 26 responding purchasers reported that the country of origin of the

certain frozen fish fillets was always or usually important in their purchases of such products, whereas the

remaining 11 firms reported that the country of origin was sometimes or never important.94 Seventeen of

the 26 responding purchasers reported that the identity of the producer of the certain frozen fish fillets

was always or usually important in their purchases of such products, whereas the remaining 9 firms

reported that the identity of the producer was sometimes or never important.95

Purchasers were also requested to explain whether they purchase frozen fish fillets from one

country in particular over other possible sources of supply.96 Sixteen of the 26 responding U.S.

purchasers reported ordering certain frozen fish fillets from a particular country over other sources of

supply, whereas the 10 remaining firms reported not ordering from a single country in particular. The 16

firms reported purchasing from a particular country for the following reasons: (1) customer

preference/requirement for domestic frozen catfish fillets,97 customer preference for imported frozen basa

and/or tra from Vietnam,98 or imported frozen catfish fillets from China,99 and (2) purchase from several

regions for risk management purposes. 

Purchasers were requested to make country-of-origin comparisons among the domestic frozen

catfish fillets, the imported frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam, and the imported frozen catfish, basa,

and/or tra fillets from third countries based on the 15 specified purchase factors discussed earlier,

indicating for each factor whether product from one country was superior, comparable, or inferior to

product from another country.100 Fifteen purchasers responded, but not for every country comparison;

purchaser responses are summarized in table II-5.
II-26

Table II-5

Certain frozen fish fillets: Comparisons of (1) domestic frozen fish fillets vis-a-vis imported frozen

basa/tra fillets from Vietnam and imported frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra from third countries, and

(2) comparisons of imported frozen basa/tra fillets from Vietnam vis-a-vis imported frozen catfish,

basa, and/or tra from third countries, all based on sales in the U.S. market during 2003-08

Purchase factors

U.S.-produced products compared

to subject imported products from–

Imported subject products

from Vietnam compared to

imported products from–

Vietnam Third countries Third countries

SC I SCI S C I

Availability * 4 8 2 4 11 1 2 12 -

Delivery terms 5 9 - 4 12 - 1 13 -

Delivery time 7 7 - 7 8 - 3 11 -

Discounts offered - 13 1 1 12 1 1 13 -

Extension of credit 2 11 1 3 11 - 1 12 1

Price1

 * 2 6 6 1 8 6 1 12 1

Minimum quantity

requirements 5 9 - 6 9 1 1 12 1

Packaging - 13 1 1 15 - 2 12 -

Product consistency 1 10 3 1 12 3 5 8 1

Product quality meets

standards * 2 12 - 2 13 1 2 12 -

Product quality exceeds

standards 2 9 3 2 11 3 3 10 1

Product range 2 10 2 2 11 3 1 13 -

Reliable supply 2 10 2 1 13 2 1 13 -

Technical support 2 11 1 1 14 1 2 12 -

U.S. transportation costs1 4 9 1 2 13 1 - 14 -

 1 A rating of “S” on price and/or transportation costs indicates that the U.S. product has lower prices or

transportation costs than the product from the country with which it is being compared.

Note.–S=superior, C=comparable, and I=inferior.

Note.–The overall top 3 purchase factors as discussed earlier are identified with asterisks.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 101 Two purchasers, ***, identified additional purchase factors that are not shown. *** reported that the domestic

frozen catfish fillets were inferior to imported certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam and third countries for the

additional factor “correct net weight;” the firm asserted that U.S. processors do not produce and ship 100 percent net

weight, which the firm requires of the foreign producers. *** reported that the domestic frozen catfish fillets were

superior to imported certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam and third countries based on the additional purchase

factors of “safety antibiotics and compliance with trade laws,” and comparable based on the additional purchase

factor “economic integrity.”

 102 The suggested ranges for the various elasticities were presented in the prehearing report for purposes of

discussion in the prehearing briefs, hearing testimony, and/or posthearing briefs; no comments were reported. The

elasticity responses in this section refer to changes that could occur within 12 months, unless otherwise indicated.

 103 Domestic supply response is generally assumed to be symmetrical for both an increase and a decrease in

demand for the domestic product. Exceptions to this assumption occur when the supply response is restricted when

demand increases (e.g., the domestic firm(s) operate near or at full capacity and any likely expansion in capacity

would take more than 12 months to complete), or when demand decreases (e.g., the domestic firm(s) must operate at

or near full capacity due to very high fixed costs). 

 104 The higher end of the range for supply elasticity for domestic frozen catfish fillets, however, depends on the

required increase in prices necessary for increased production of farm-raised catfish; the higher the price increase

required the lower the supply elasticity of domestic frozen catfish fillets.

 105 The greater the effect of substitutes for certain frozen fish fillets, the closer the elasticity is to the higher end of

the range, and the greater the effect of alternatives as complements to certain frozen fish fillets, the closer the

elasticity is to the lower end of the range.

II-27

The U.S.-produced frozen catfish fillets were generally comparable to the imported frozen basa

and tra fillets from Vietnam and to the imported frozen catfish, basa, and/or tra fillets from third

countries.101 The single exception involved delivery times for both sets of comparisons; the domestic

frozen catfish fillets were rated superior in nearly half of all comparisons.

ELASTICITY ESTIMATES102

U.S. Supply Elasticity

The domestic supply elasticity for U.S.-processed frozen catfish fillets measures the sensitivity of

the quantity supplied by the U.S. producers to a change in the U.S. market price of these products. The

elasticity of domestic supply depends on several factors including the U.S. producers’ level of excess

capacity, the ease with which the U.S. producers can alter their productive capacity, the existence of

inventories, and the availability of alternate markets for domestic frozen catfish fillets.103 Analysis of

these factors indicates that, overall, the U.S. processors had flexibility in the short run to alter their supply

of frozen catfish fillets to the U.S. market in response to relative changes in the demand for their products. 

The domestic elasticity of supply for frozen catfish fillets is estimated to be in the range of 2-4.104

U.S. Demand Elasticity

The U.S. price elasticity of demand for certain frozen fish fillets measures the sensitivity of the

overall quantity demanded for certain frozen fish fillets to changes in the U.S. market price of certain

frozen fish fillets. The price elasticity of demand depends on factors discussed earlier such as the

existence and availability of substitute products for certain frozen fish fillets. Based on available

information, the demand elasticity for certain frozen fish fillets is estimated to be in the range of negative

0.5 to negative 1.5.105
 106 The substitution elasticity measures the responsiveness of the relative U.S. consumption levels of the imports

and the U.S. domestic like product to changes in their relative prices. This reflects how easily purchasers switch

from the U.S. product to the imported product (or vice versa) when prices change.

 107 Some purchasers asserted that the labeling requirements have led, to at least some degree, to differentiated

markets for the domestic frozen catfish fillets and imported frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam. 

 108 The more modest the impact of differentiating factors between the domestic and subject imported products,

such as regional consumer preferences for the domestic product, differences in taste and texture, “Buy America”

policies and laws, concern about health factors regarding the subject imported products, etc., the closer the

substitution elasticity is to the upper end of the range. The more pronounced these differentiating factors, the closer

the substitution elasticity is to the lower end of the range.

II-28

Substitution Elasticity106

The elasticity of substitution largely depends upon the degree to which there is an overlap of

competition between domestic frozen catfish fillets and imported frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam,

and the extent of product differentiation.107 Product differentiation, in turn, depends on such factors as

physical characteristics (e.g., sizes (weights), types (regular, shank, or strip fillets), taste, smell, texture,

and other quality factors), consumer preferences, and conditions of sale (e.g., delivery lead times,

reliability of supply, technical service, etc.). Based on available information discussed earlier, the

elasticity of substitution between domestic frozen fish fillets and imported frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam is estimated to be in the range of 2-4.108
 1

 Staff’s coverage estimate is based on a comparison of data compiled from Commission questionnaires to official

USDA/NASS statistics. ***.

III-1

PART III: CONDITION OF THE U.S. INDUSTRY

OVERVIEW

Background

Information in this section is based on the questionnaire responses of 14 processors that

accounted for 82.4 percent of U.S. shipments during 2008.1

Changes Experienced in Operations

Domestic processors were asked to indicate whether their firm had experienced any plant

openings, relocations, expansions, acquisitions, consolidation, closures, or prolonged shutdowns because

of strikes or equipment failure; curtailment of production because of shortages of materials or other

reasons including revision of labor agreements (including pension or health care obligations of retirees or

current employees); or any other change in the character of their operations or organization relating to the

production of frozen fish fillets since 2003. Thirteen processors indicated that they had experienced

some change in the character of their operations since 2003. The domestic processors’ responses to this

question are detailed in table III-1. 

Table III-1

Certain frozen fish fillets: Changes in the character of U.S. operations

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes in Existing Operations

The Commission requested that domestic processors discuss anticipated changes to their U.S.

operations. Table III-2 presents U.S. processors’ anticipated changes to their U.S. operations. 

Table III-2

Certain frozen fish fillets: Anticipated changes in U.S. operations

* * * * * * *
 2

 ***. 

 3

 Prairie Lands ceased operations in 2003, SEACAT ceased operations in 2004, and both Aquafarms and Pride of

the South ceased operations in 2006. As these companies were unable to provide data prior to their closure,

questionnaire data somewhat understate volume reductions since 2003.

 4

 Processors reported producing whole catfish, fresh catfish fillets, fresh catfish nuggets, fresh catfish steak,

frozen whole catfish, frozen catfish steaks, and frozen catfish nuggets.

III-2

U.S. PROCESSORS’ CAPACITY, PRODUCTION, AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

The Commission requested information on certain frozen fish fillets capacity and production from

processors. Their data on frozen catfish fillets capacity, production, and capacity utilization are presented

in table III-3. Processors’ reported capacity in the United States remained relatively stable between 2003

and 2007 (despite an apparent increase in 2005 that actually reflects ***).2

 Capacity declined noticeably

in 2008, however, as Southern Pride halted its processing operations late in the year. Production cuts by

half the industry began earlier, however, driving down capacity utilization in 2007 and 2008. In addition,

at least four domestic catfish processors (Aquafarms, Prairie Lands, Pride of the South, and SEACAT)

have ceased operations.3

 

Table III-3

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. processors’ total capacity, production, and capacity utilization,

2003-08

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Capacity (1,000 pounds) 146,079 146,482 150,802 150,001 149,127 137,129

Production (1,000 pounds) 106,591 111,483 114,138 111,763 94,408 97,068

Capacity utilization

(percent) 73.0 76.1 75.7 74.5 63.3 70.8

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Constraints on Capacity

The Commission asked domestic processors to report constraints on their capacity to produce

certain frozen fish fillets. Two processors reported the live fish supply as the most important constraint,

two reported freezer capacity, five reported market conditions and price, and one reported size of live fish

as the most important constraint. For the second most important constraint on production, four firms

reported the live fish supply, and one reported machinery or equipment other than freezers. 

Alternative Products

Table III-4 presents the U.S. processors’ total and allocated freezing capacity. Four domestic

processors reported that they process salmon, trout, sturgeon or shrimp utilizing the same equipment and

related workers used to produce certain frozen fish fillets. Fourteen domestic processors reported that they

produce a variety of other fresh and frozen catfish products other than certain frozen fish fillets utilizing

the same equipment and related workers.4
 5

 U.S. processors’ shipments as reported by official USDA/NASS statistics (presented in table C-1) show an

overall decrease of 18.4 percent in U.S. shipments from 2003-08. Because USDA/NASS data are collected on a

monthly basis, these data include partial period shipments by processors that are no longer operating (and thus did

not complete Commission questionnaires). 

III-3

Table III-4

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. processors’ capacity, by type, 2003-08

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Total potential freezing capacity 208,341 209,617 220,028 220,034 227,168 237,541

 of which 

 allocated to non-catfish

 frozen products 15.4 15.3 14.5 14.5 14.6 15.6

 allocated to frozen catfish

 products other than the

 merchandise under review 21.5 21.2 21.9 22.3 21.7 21.1

 allocated to certain frozen fish

 fillets (i.e. merchandise under

 review) 63.1 63.5 63.5 63.1 63.7 63.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PROCESSORS’ DOMESTIC SHIPMENTS, COMPANY TRANSFERS, 

AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS

As detailed in table III-5, the quantity of U.S. processors’ U.S. shipments increased from 2003 to

2005, then decreased in 2006 through 2008, for an overall decrease of 11.0 percent.5

 ***. Similarly, the

value of U.S. shipments increased from 2003 to 2006, then decreased in 2007 and 2008, but still increased

overall by 8.4 percent. There was no reported internal consumption or transfers to related firms. Exports

were reported in 2003 only. The unit values of U.S. shipments rose steadily from $2.40 per pound in

2003 to $2.91 in 2006, then increased marginally in 2007 and 2008. While most U.S. processors reported

a decrease or slight increase in unit values from 2006 to 2008, *** as well as ***, reported greater

increases in unit values.
III-4

Table III-5

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. processors’ shipments, by type, 2003-08

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Commercial shipments 106,315 107,744 115,750 109,265 96,366 94,572

Internal consumption 000000

Transfer to related firms 000000

 U.S. shipments 106,315 107,744 115,750 109,265 96,366 94,572

Export shipments 900000

 Total 106,324 107,744 115,750 109,265 96,366 94,572

Value (1,000 dollars)

Commercial shipments 255,666 283,331 308,986 318,030 281,420 277,076

Internal consumption 000000

Transfer to related firms 000000

 U.S. shipments 255,666 283,331 308,986 318,030 281,420 277,076

Export shipments 2300000

 Total 255,689 283,331 308,986 318,030 281,420 277,076

Unit value (dollars per pound)

Commercial shipments 2.40 2.63 2.67 2.91 2.92 2.93

Internal consumption (

1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

Transfer to related firms (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 U.S. shipments 2.40 2.63 2.67 2.91 2.92 2.93

Export shipments 2.56 (1

) (1) (1) (1) (1)

 Total 2.40 2.63 2.67 2.91 2.92 2.93

Share of shipment quantity (percent)

Commercial shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Internal consumption 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Transfer to related firms 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 U.S. shipments 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Export shipments 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Not applicable.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 6

 ***. 

 7

 ***. 

 8

 ***. 

 9

 Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, p. 26.

III-5

U.S. PROCESSORS’ INVENTORIES

Data collected in this review on domestic processors’ end-of-period inventories of certain frozen

fish fillets are presented in table III-6. The domestic industry’s inventories of frozen fish fillets increased

overall during the period for which data were collected, with the lowest level of inventories reported for

year end 2003. Inventories held at year end 2008 were their highest level. Inventories, relative to total

shipments, increased from a low of 7.1 percent in 2003 to a high of 12.5 percent in 2008. ***.6

 ***. 

Table III-6

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. processors’ end-of-period inventories, 2003-08

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Inventories (1,000 pounds) 7,502 10,864 9,376 11,592 9,472 11,837

Ratio to production (percent) 7.0 9.7 8.2 10.4 10.0 12.2

Ratio to U.S. shipments

(percent) 7.1 10.1 8.1 10.6 9.8 12.5

Ratio to total shipments

(percent) 7.1 10.1 8.1 10.6 9.8 12.5

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

U.S. PROCESSORS’ IMPORTS AND PURCHASES

One U.S. processor, ***, reported direct imports of certain frozen fish fillets. ***. ***.7

 Eight

U.S. processors reported purchases of domestic production of frozen fish fillets: ***, ***, ***, ***, ***,

***, ***, and ***.8

U.S. PROCESSORS’ EMPLOYMENT, WAGES, AND PRODUCTIVITY

Data provided by U.S. processors on the number of production and related workers (“PRWs”)

engaged in the production of certain frozen fish fillets, the total hours worked by such workers, and wages

paid to such PRWs during the period for which data were collected in this review are presented in table

III-7. The number of PRWs fluctuated from 2003 to 2008. Hours worked also fluctuated from 2003 to

2008, and were 12.3 percent lower in 2008 compared to 2003, ***. Despite the reduction in hours

worked, wages paid increased by 3.8 percent, as hourly wage rates increased by 18.3 percent between

2003 and 2008. During this same period, productivity increased by only 3.8 percent, resulting in an

increase of 14.0 percent in unit labor costs. Approximately one-half of all U.S. processors have unionized

labor forces represented by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.9
III-6

Table III-7

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. processors’ employment-related indicators, 2003-08 

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Production and related

workers (PRWs) 2,612 2,608 2,753 2,681 2,480 2,589

Hours worked by PRWs

(1,000 hours) 5,338 5,128 5,308 5,427 4,925 4,684

Wages paid to PRWs

(1,000 dollars) 37,566 37,508 40,095 41,343 39,086 38,994

Hourly wages $7.04 $7.31 $7.55 $7.62 $7.94 $8.32

Productivity (pounds

produced per hour) 20.0 21.7 21.5 20.6 19.2 20.7

Unit labor costs 

(per pound) $0.35 $0.34 $0.35 $0.37 $0.41 $0.40

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 10 ***

 11 ***

 12 ***. Auditor prehearing notes (EDIS document ID number 401361). 

 13 See appendix F for a description of the components which make up the variance analysis. The absence of 2003

and 2004 data for *** limits the accuracy of the variance analysis. *** represents a *** processor accounting for

*** percent to *** percent of the industry’s total sales volume between 2005 and 2008. Additionally and with

respect to the industry’s financial results as a whole, profitability is likely somewhat overstated in 2003 and 2004 by

the absence of ***. Ibid.

 14 ***.

 15 Table C-1.

 16 E-mail with attachments from ***, March 13, 2009. 

 17 Auditor prehearing notes.

III-7

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE OF THE U.S. PROCESSORS

Background

The financial results of 14 U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets are presented in this section of

the report.10 The majority of processors reported their financial results on the basis of U.S. generally

accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for calendar and fiscal year periods.11 

Revenue represents commercial sales with no transfers or internal consumption reported. While

some U.S. processors maintained essentially the same frozen catfish fillet operations throughout the

period, *** reported changes in the nature of their operations which impacted their respective financial

results.12

Processors’ Operations on Frozen Catfish Fillets

Table III-8 presents the financial results of the U.S. industry’s processing operations on frozen

catfish fillets. Selected financial information by processor is presented in table III-9. For each processor

the relative share of live catfish purchased from related and unrelated growers, respectively, is presented

in table III-10. Table III-11 presents a variance analysis of the U.S. processors financial results.13 

Sales Quantity and Value

When considering those processors and successor entities reporting operations throughout the

period, overall sales volume declined *** percent between 2003 and 2008.14 For the same period

NASS/USDA information indicates that frozen fish fillet sales volume declined by around 18.4 percent.15

While the majority of processors reported lower sales volume at the end of the period compared

to the beginning, the magnitude of company-specific declines was not uniform. Of the medium-to-large

volume processors (i.e., over several million pounds in sales volume) with operations throughout the

entire period, *** reported the most substantial overall decline in sales volume at *** percent. 

Corresponding with this decline, *** eliminated a portion of its processing capacity in 2006.16 Similarly,

the overall decline in *** sales volume during the period corresponds with the elimination of that

company’s ***.17 
III-8

Table III-8

Certain frozen fish fillets: Results of operations of U.S. processors in the production of frozen catfish fillets, 2003-08

Item

Calendar and fiscal year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Total net sales 107,402 108,368 115,235 110,709 97,706 99,273

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales 258,897 282,459 306,899 317,991 286,029 288,972

Cost of sales

Catfish from related growers 72,289 84,705 97,477 96,015 88,222 83,036

Catfish from unrelated growers 73,530 95,746 99,048 111,624 88,503 107,653

Other raw materials 2,673 2,165 2,029 2,266 2,015 2,128

 Total raw material cost 148,492 182,616 198,554 209,905 178,740 192,817

Direct labor 29,692 28,383 29,513 30,544 28,345 33,535

Other factory costs 41,298 38,419 43,603 43,578 56,062 36,016

Less: byproduct revenue from offal (2,709) (3,640) (4,012) (4,476) (4,628) (5,303)

 Total cost of sales 216,773 245,778 267,658 279,551 258,519 257,065

Gross profit 42,124 36,681 39,241 38,440 27,510 31,907

Selling expenses 19,185 21,537 21,445 20,805 19,188 20,287

General and administrative expenses 6,863 6,737 8,168 8,121 7,748 8,045

 Total SG&A expenses 26,048 28,274 29,613 28,926 26,936 28,332

Operating income 16,076 8,407 9,628 9,514 574 3,575

Interest expense 2,178 2,158 2,374 2,477 2,021 1,883

Other expenses 862 4,220 1,426 819 5,302 3,371

CDSOA funds received 0 0 4,196 3,601 6,354 6,295

Other income items 728 882 1,002 703 629 3,318

Net income 13,764 2,911 11,026 10,522 234 7,934

Depr. and amortization (incl. above) 6,791 7,317 7,820 7,926 7,219 5,258

Est. cash flow from operations 20,555 10,228 18,846 18,448 7,453 13,192

Table continued on next page.
III-9

Table III-8--Continued

Certain frozen fish fillets: Results of operations of U.S. processors in the production of frozen catfish fillets, 2003-08

Item

Calendar and fiscal year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Ratio to net sales (percent)

Catfish from related growers 27.9 30.0 31.8 30.2 30.8 28.7

Catfish from unrelated growers 28.4 33.9 32.3 35.1 30.9 37.3

Other raw materials 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

 Total raw material cost 57.4 64.7 64.7 66.0 62.5 66.7

Direct labor 11.5 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.9 11.6

Other factory costs 16.0 13.6 14.2 13.7 19.6 12.5

Less: byproduct revenue from offal (1.0) (1.3) (1.3) (1.4) (1.6) (1.8)

 Total cost of sales 83.7 87.0 87.2 87.9 90.4 89.0

Gross profit 16.3 13.0 12.8 12.1 9.6 11.0

 Total SG&A expenses 10.1 10.0 9.6 9.1 9.4 9.8

Operating income 6.2 3.0 3.1 3.0 0.2 1.2

Net income 5.3 1.0 3.6 3.3 0.1 2.7

Unit value (dollars per pound)

Total net sales 2.41 2.61 2.66 2.87 2.93 2.91

Cost of sales

Catfish from related growers 0.67 0.78 0.85 0.87 0.90 0.84

Catfish from unrelated growers 0.68 0.88 0.86 1.01 0.91 1.08

Other raw materials 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02

 Total raw material cost 1.38 1.69 1.72 1.90 1.83 1.94

Direct labor 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.29 0.34

Other factory costs 0.38 0.35 0.38 0.39 0.57 0.36

Less: byproduct revenue from offal (0.03) (0.03) (0.03) (0.04) (0.05) (0.05)

 Total cost of sales 2.02 2.27 2.32 2.53 2.65 2.59

Gross profit 0.39 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.28 0.32

SG&A expenses 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.26 0.28 0.29

Operating income 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.01 0.04

Number of companies reporting

Data 12 12 13 13 13 14

Operating losses 4 5 4 6 7 8

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 18 ***. 

 19 ***. Auditor prehearing notes. 

 20 See table C-1.

 21 This pattern is generally consistent with NASS/USDA data compiled from Catfish Processing reports

(presented below). The 6.2 percent increase in average raw material costs in 2008 compared to 2007 reflected in

table III-9, however, is notably higher compared to the 1.2 percent increase in the average price received by growers

as reported by NASS/USDA. As discussed below, the reason for this divergence appears to be primarily due to the

manner in which ***.

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Farm-raised catfish prices (dollars per pound) 0.58 0.70 0.72 0.80 0.77 0.78

III-10

Table III-9

Certain frozen fish fillets: Results of operations of U.S. processors in the production of frozen catfish fillets,

by firm, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

Table III-10

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. processors’ cost of live catfish purchased from related and unrelated

growers, respectively, as a share of total cost of live catfish, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

In contrast with the majority of processors with operations throughout the period, *** reported

overall increases in sales volume of *** percent and *** percent, respectively, from 2003 through 2008. 

Similarly, while *** reported somewhat lower sales volume in 2008 compared to 2003, its sales volume

for 2004 through 2007 was consistently above the 2003 level. As discussed below, these companies,

along with ***, are also notable because they are the *** medium-to-large size processors that reported

operating profit on their certain frozen fish fillet operations throughout the period for which data were

collected.18

Consistent with the decline in overall sales volume, the table III-11 variance analysis shows that

the overall increase in certain frozen fish fillet revenue was due entirely to higher average sales value. 

With some exceptions, table III-9 shows that company-specific average sales values for certain frozen fish

fillets were in the same basic range and generally followed similar patterns of change.19 When taken as a

whole the average per pound sales value presented in table III-8 are within several cents of the per pound

sales values reported by NASS/USDA.20 As noted below with respect to differences in financial results,

company-specific average sales values in part reflect variations in the level of further processing and

channels of trade. 

Table III-8 shows that higher average sales values generally correspond with increases in average

raw material costs. The exceptions to this pattern were in 2007 when the overall average sales value of

certain frozen fish fillets increased and average raw material costs declined, and in 2008 when overall

average sales value of certain frozen fish fillets declined and average raw material costs increased.21 
III-11

Table III-11

Certain frozen fish fillets: Variance analysis on results of operations of U.S. processors in the production of frozen catfish

fillets, 2003-08

Calendar and fiscal year

2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales:

 Price variance 49,670 21,233 6,541 23,146 5,387 (1,644)

 Volume variance (19,595) 2,329 17,899 (12,054) (37,349) 4,587

 Total net sales variance 30,075 23,562 24,440 11,092 (31,962) 2,943

Cost of sales:

Total raw material cost:

 Cost variance (55,564) (32,788) (4,366) (19,149) 6,511 (11,210)

 Volume variance 11,239 (1,336) (11,572) 7,798 24,654 (2,867)

 Net total raw material cost variance (44,325) (34,124) (15,938) (11,351) 31,165 (14,077)

Direct labor:

 Cost variance (6,090) 1,576 669 (2,190) (1,388) (4,735)

 Volume variance 2,247 (267) (1,799) 1,159 3,587 (455)

 Net direct labor variance (3,843) 1,309 (1,130) (1,031) 2,199 (5,190)

Other factory costs:

 Cost variance 2,156 3,250 (2,749) (1,688) (17,602) 20,945

 Volume variance 3,126 (371) (2,435) 1,713 5,118 (899)

 Net other factory cost variance 5,282 2,879 (5,184) 25 (12,484) 20,046

Byproduct revenue from offal:

 Price variance 2,799 907 141 622 678 601

 Volume variance (205) 24 231 (158) (526) 74

 Net byproduct revenue from offal 2,594 931 372 464 152 675

Net cost of sales:

 Cost variance (56,699) (27,055) (6,306) (22,406) (11,802) 5,600

 Volume variance 16,407 (1,950) (15,574) 10,513 32,834 (4,146)

 Total net cost of sales variance (40,292) (29,005) (21,880) (11,893) 21,032 1,454

Gross profit variance (10,217) (5,443) 2,560 (801) (10,930) 4,397

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (4,256) (1,992) 453 (476) (1,408) (964)

 Volume variance 1,971 (234) (1,792) 1,163 3,397 (432)

 Total SG&A variance (2,284) (2,226) (1,339) 687 1,989 (1,396)

Operating income variance (12,501) (7,669) 1,221 (114) (8,941) 3,001

Table continued on next page.
 22 ***. 

 23 In addition to live catfish, raw material also includes “other raw materials” which represent items such as

batter, breading, packaging, and related supplies. While several companies reported costs for this line item, it

appears that most processors with other raw material costs reported them as part of other factory costs. ***. Auditor

prehearing notes. 

 24 E-mails (first and second) from ***, March 20, 2009. Auditor prehearing notes. 

III-12

Table III-11--Continued

Certain frozen fish fillets: Variance analysis on results of operations of U.S. processors in the production of frozen catfish

fillets, 2003-08

Calendar and fiscal year

2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Value ($1,000)

Operating income variance

 Price variance 49,670 21,233 6,541 23,146 5,387 (1,644)

 Net cost/expense variance (60,955) (29,047) (5,853) (22,882) (13,210) 4,636

 Net volume variance (1,217) 145 533 (378) (1,117) 9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Cost of Sales

The individual components of cost of sales presented in table III-8 exhibited somewhat different

patterns of change during the period: average raw material costs were 40.5 percent higher in 2008

compared to 2003, average direct labor was 22.2 percent higher in 2008 compared to 2003, while average

other factory costs were 5.6 percent lower in 2008 compared to 2003.22 

The variance analysis in table III-11 shows that the net increase in average cost of sales offset

higher average prices and was a key contributing factor in the lower relative profitability. All things

being equal, however, even if processors had collectively maintained their higher 2003 operating profit

margin throughout the period, absolute profitability would still have declined due to lower sales volume.

As noted below, decisions to reduce processing capacity and/or to reorganize/consolidate operations were

generally attributed to poor financial results and reductions in market share. 

Raw Material

As a share of total cost of sales, purchased live catfish ranged from 67.3 percent to 74.3 percent.23

The low end of the above range was 2003 when the average price paid to growers was at its lowest level,

while the high end of the range corresponds with the peak average live catfish price in 2006 as reported

by NASS/USDA. 

While processors by definition all have processing capability, the extent to which they engage in

additional activity such as growing, harvesting, hauling/distribution, and feed milling varies. For

example, while some producers have harvesting and hauling capability, *** is reportedly unique in that it

handled *** for the growers from which it purchased live catfish. In addition to impacting *** cost of

live catfish, as noted below, this activity also affects the level of the company’s *** relative to other

processors.24 In most instances, the cost of harvesting and hauling live catfish for delivery to the
 25 ***. Ibid.

 26 ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 23, 2009. Auditor prehearing notes.

 27 ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 17, 2009. ***. Auditor prehearing

notes. ***. E-mail with attachments from ***, March 11, 2009. ***. E-mail with attachments from Akin Gump on

behalf of ***, March 13, 2009. ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 16, 2009. 

 28 ***. E-mail with attachments from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 17, 2009. ***. E-mail with

attachments from ***, March 13, 2009. ***. Auditor prehearing notes. ***. Ibid. 

 29 ***. Ibid.

 30 As shown in table III-10, some processors reported relatively large changes in the share of live catfish

purchased from related and unrelated growers. ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***,

March 23, 2009.

 31 ***. Auditor prehearing notes. ***. Auditor prehearing notes.

 32 ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 31, 2009. E-mail with attachment from

Akin Gump on behalf of ***, April 2, 2009.

 33 ***. Auditor prehearing notes.

 34 The relative share of purchases from related and unrelated growers does not generally explain differences in

company-specific financial results. ***.

 35 Size here generally refers to the range of live catfish weight which maximizes processing efficiencies. 

III-13

processor appears to be the responsibility of the grower and is therefore not directly reflected as a cost in

table III-8.25 

In some cases, the comparability of company-specific raw material costs shown in table III-9 is

limited. In particular, ***. As explained by the company, notable changes in *** average raw material

costs in 2007 and 2008, as shown in table III-9, reflect large swings in ***.26 

Live Catfish Purchased from Related and Unrelated Growers

The term “related grower” covers a number of relationships including primary ownership in the

processing facility as a grower/owner, as well as growers with processing rights.27 In several cases,

“related grower” also refers to the captive growing operations of divisions or companies related to the

processor.28 Table III-10 shows that purchases of live catfish from unrelated growers represented the

majority of overall purchases during the period.29 30

While most processors stated that the price paid to related and unrelated growers for live catfish

was the same and at fair market value, *** indicated that its related growers have occasionally received a

somewhat higher price compared to unrelated growers.31 When asked to clarify whether payments to

related growers included a distribution of profit, most processors stated that the reported cost of live

catfish from related growers does not include a distribution of profit.32 While the net price paid for live

catfish by processors varies, fair market value at any given time appears to be based in part on what larger

processors are understood to be currently paying.33 34

Adjustments to Net Prices Paid to Growers

While processors generally characterized the price paid for live catfish as fair market value, there

does not appear to be a single method for adjusting prices for the actual size delivered by growers.35 In at

least one case, the processor does not retroactively adjust the price for under or over-sized fish, but does

reduce the price paid to growers by several cents below market to account for the absence of a size

penalty. Another processor only implements a size-based price structure when supply is abundant. Other

processors indicated that within the last several years they have adopted price structures in which only
 36 Auditor prehearing notes. ***. Ibid.

 37 Ibid. ***. Ibid.

 38 Ibid. ***. Ibid. 

 39 ***. Ibid.

 40 ***. Ibid.

 41 Ibid. 

 42 Ibid. Approximately half of all U.S. processors are unionized. Petitioners’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, p. 26.

***. Auditor prehearing notes.

 43 As shown in table III-9, the average direct labor cost reported by ***. Ibid. 

 44 E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 17, 2009.

 45 Auditor prehearing notes.

III-14

fish falling within the desired size range receive full price; i.e., the net price paid for fish falling outside

this range reflects a deduction. In instances where the price is not adjusted for size directly, at least one

processor indicated that it has implemented a system to track the size of live fish delivered by specific

growers. This in turn allows the processor to direct purchases to growers consistently supplying more

desirable size ranges.36 Despite differences in price structure, processors generally indicated that

adjustments to net price are applied equally to both related and unrelated growers.37

Consistent with generally higher prices paid to growers during the period, table III-8 shows that

total average raw material cost generally increased throughout the period. In addition to higher prices,

most processors reported that the average yield of usable catfish meat declined during the latter part of the

period. This decline was generally attributed to higher feed costs which in turn reduced feeding by

growers. In an attempt to mitigate higher feed prices, there were reportedly changes in feed formulation

which may have also adversely affected yield.38 Notwithstanding a general shift by a number of

processors to adjust the net price of live catfish for delivered size, most processors indicated that they do

not routinely adjust net price for actual yield.39 While several processors acknowledged the practical

benefit of adjusting net price for yield, ***.40

Direct Labor

As described by several processors, catfish processing is highly labor intensive. For example,

***.41 

With respect to changes in direct labor costs in general, most processors cited increased minimum

wages as being a primary factor.42 In the case of ***, higher average direct labor cost, as compared to

***, was due primarily to the reconfiguration of operations.43 In contrast, the consistently higher average

direct labor cost reported by *** compared to other processors appears to be primarily due to ***.44

Other Factory Costs 

With respect to changes in other factory costs, a number of processors indicated that packaging

and energy costs increased in the latter part of the period. One processor also noted that the cost of

tripolyphosphates used to extend shelf life increased in 2008.45 While these factors likely impacted all or 
 46 ***. Ibid. ***. Ibid. E-mails (first and second) from ***, March 20, 2009. 

 47 ***. Auditor prehearing notes. 

 48 ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 23, 2009.

 49 E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 17, 2009.

 50 E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 17, 2009. 

 51 E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 23, 2009. 

 52 E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 13, 2009. 

 53 ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 16, 2009. 

 54 ***. Auditor prehearing notes.

 ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 23, 2009. 

 ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on behalf of ***, March 17, 2009.

 55 *** both eliminated capacity during the period. ***. E-mail with attachments from ***, March 13, 2009. 

 ***. Auditor prehearing notes.

 56 ***. Auditor prehearing notes. 

 57 ***. *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, III-13. ***. E-mail with attachment from Akin Gump on

behalf of ***, March 16, 2009. 

III-15

the majority of processors, average other factory costs for some processors also reflect underlying

changes in their operations, as well as the accounting method used to report cost of sales.46 47

Financial Results

While general trends such as changes in average sales value and raw material cost were common

to most processors, there are a number of factors which make each processor unique and in turn help to

explain differences in company-specific financial results (see table III-9). 

***.48 ***.49 ***.50 ***.51 ***.52

Notwithstanding the generally positive financial performance of the above processors, table III-9

shows that the majority of processors reported consecutive losses interspersed with sporadic operating

income. This pattern of poor financial results in turn motivated capacity reductions, reorganization,

consolidation, as well as one processor’s complete exit from the market.53 54 55 

While the impact of capacity reductions and reorganization/consolidation is directly reflected in

changes in sales volume and the exit and entry of processors, non-recurring charges related to these

operational changes are not reflected in table III-8 operating results; i.e., affected processors either did not

report such restructuring charges to the Commission or reported them as “other expenses.”56

Research and Development Expenses, Capital Expenditures, Assets, and Return on Investment

Data on company-specific research and development (“R&D”) expenses, capital expenditures,

total assets, and return on investment (“ROI”) are presented in table III-12.

As shown in table III-12, *** processors reporting R&D expenses during the period.57

Consistent with a period during which overall capacity was reduced and some processing

operations reorganized/consolidated, the U.S. industry’s annual capital expenditures were consistently

lower than corresponding depreciation expense. As described by processors, capital expenditures
 58 With the exception of ***, the following narrative statements are based on company-specific responses to

question III-13 of the U.S. producer questionnaire response. ***. Auditor prehearing notes. 

III-16

Table III-12

Certain frozen fish fillets: Value of research and development expenses, capital expenditures, total assets,

and return on investment of U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets, 2003-08

* * * * * * *

generally fell into the following categories: capitalized maintenance and repair, equipment purchases to

improve quality and efficiency, and truck/trailer purchases.58
 1

 Eight firms reported that they did not import certain frozen fish fillets during the period for which data were

collected. Thirty-one firms did not respond to the Commission’s questionnaire. 

 2

 HTS statistical reporting numbers 0304.20.6030 (January 2003 - June 2004); 0304.20.6032, 0304.20.6033 (July

2004 - December 2006); and 0304.29.6032, 0304.29.6033 (January 2007 - December 2008).

 3

 As discussed in Parts I and II, reporting irregularities make the use of official import statistics for years prior to

2008 problematic.

IV-1

PART IV: U.S. IMPORTS AND THE FOREIGN INDUSTRY

U.S. IMPORTS

The Commission sent questionnaires to 50 firms believed to have imported certain frozen fish

fillets between January 2003 and December 2008. Questionnaire responses were received from 11 firms.1

Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise include frozen basa or tra fillets. Data for nonsubject fillets

include frozen catfish, basa, or tra fillets. U.S. import data for Vietnam are based on aggregated export

data reported by VASEP. U.S. import data for all other sources are based on official U.S. import

statistics.2

 Firms responding to the Commission’s questionnaires accounted for *** percent of imports

from Vietnam and *** percent of total imports in 2008. Data regarding U.S. imports appear in tables IV1 and IV-2. 

In 2008, imports of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam were greatest in April-October, imports from

China were greatest in January-May, and imports from all other sources were greatest in January-July.3

In 2008, the leading ports of entry for imports from Vietnam were: Los Angeles, CA (44.8 percent); New

York, NY (12.7 percent); and Miami, FL (10.2 percent). The leading ports of entry for imports from

China were: Los Angeles, CA (23.3 percent); Houston-Galveston, TX (18.1 percent); Boston, MA (14.9

percent); and New Orleans, LA (11.9 percent). The leading ports of entry for imports from all other

sources were Los Angeles, CA (57.3 percent); New York, NY (19.4 percent); and Miami, FL (14.3

percent).

Table IV-1

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-08

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Vietnam 19,689 31,349 32,548 53,531 46,728 53,305

China 719 1,679 3,344 14,593 21,420 27,542

All other 457 820 5,618 16,277 18,443 16,586

 Total 20,865 33,848 41,510 84,401 86,591 97,434

Value (1,000 dollars)

1

Vietnam 24,228 43,150 35,258 72,872 67,606 78,559

China 1,265 2,879 6,109 27,214 38,978 50,687

All other 509 1,290 7,577 26,945 33,143 27,136

 Total 26,003 47,319 48,944 127,031 139,727 156,382

Table continued on next page.
IV-2

Table IV-1 – Continued

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. imports, by sources, 2003-08

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Unit value (per pound)

Vietnam2 $1.23 $1.38 $1.08 $1.36 $1.45 $1.47

China 1.76 1.71 1.83 1.86 1.82 1.84

All other 1.11 1.57 1.35 1.66 1.80 1.64

 Total 1.25 1.40 1.18 1.51 1.61 1.61

Share of quantity (percent)

Vietnam 94.4 92.6 78.4 63.4 54.0 54.7

China 3.4 5.0 8.1 17.3 24.7 28.3

All others 2.2 2.4 13.5 19.3 21.3 17.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Share of value (percent)

Vietnam 93.2 91.2 72.0 57.4 48.4 50.2

China 4.9 6.1 12.5 21.4 27.9 32.4

All others 2.0 2.7 15.5 21.2 23.7 17.4

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Ratio of import quantity to U.S. production (percent)

Vietnam 18.5 28.1 28.5 47.9 49.5 54.9

China 0.7 1.5 2.9 13.1 22.7 28.4

All others 0.4 0.7 4.9 14.6 19.5 17.1

 Total 19.6 30.4 36.4 75.5 91.7 100.4

 1 Believed to be ex-processing facility for U.S. imports from Vietnam. Landed duty-paid for U.S. imports from China, all other

sources.

 2

 Unit value data reflect the valuation of exports from Vietnam to the United States, rather than U.S. imports from Vietnam

(which, as previously noted, were subject to reporting irregularities). The unit values of U.S. imports from Vietnam as reported by

official Commerce statistics are $1.31 (2003), $1.29 (2004), $1.06 (2005), $1.45 (2006), $1.57 (2007), and $1.56 (2008).

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics and from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 4

 The domestic interested parties believe that imports reported to be from Thailand may consist in part of

Vietnamese-origin frozen basa and tra fillets that are circumventing the antidumping duty order. Domestic interested

parties’ prehearing brief, p. 49. Similarly, U.S. importer *** reported that “product imported from Thailand and

China, where there is same limited production of product, does not support export volumes from these countries. 

Malaysia and Indonesia also have no significant commercial production. Somehow exports from Vietnam to

Thailand often match volumes imported to USA from Thailand.” *** U.S. importer questionnaire response at II-7

(b).

 5

 The U.S. Department of Commerce found that two related Vietnamese firms circumvented the antidumping

order by importing whole, live basa and tra into Cambodia and processing them into frozen fish fillets for export to

the United States. Circumvention and Scope Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty order on Certain Frozen Fish

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the

Antidumping Duty Order; Partial Final Termination of Circumvention Inquiry and Final Rescission of Scope

Inquiry, 71 FR 38608, July 7, 2006.

IV-3

LEADING NONSUBJECT SOURCES OF IMPORTS

During the period for which data were collected, imports of certain frozen fish fillets entered the

United States from several sources. The leading nonsubject suppliers are shown in table IV-2. The total

quantity of certain frozen fish fillet imports from all nonsubject sources increased markedly during the

period for which data were collected. China and Thailand are the leading nonsubject country suppliers. In

2008, imports from China were 75 percent catfish and 25 percent basa and tra, whereas imports from

Thailand were 99.7 percent basa and tra.4

 Imports from Cambodia (100 percent basa and tra in 2008)

increased markedly through 2006, when Commerce issued an affirmative determination of

circumvention.5

U.S. IMPORTERS’ INVENTORIES

Data relating to U.S. importers’ inventories of certain frozen fish fillets are presented in table IV3. Inventories of subject imports fluctuated throughout the period for which data were collected, with the

lowest inventory level reported in 2003 and the highest inventory level reported in 2006. Inventory levels

of nonsubject imports were minimal during 2003-05, then increased rapidly, with the highest inventory

level reported in 2008. Importers’ inventories from nonsubject countries are largely of Chinese origin,

and are believed to include substantial volumes of Ictaluridae catfish.
IV-4

Table IV-2

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. imports from leading nonsubject sources, 2003-08

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

Cambodia 0 437 1,005 2,033 2,350 2,126

China 719 1,679 3,344 14,593 21,420 27,542

Indonesia 0 0 58 1,196 1,832 1,552

Malaysia 16 0 426 4,769 904 145

Thailand1 47 5 3,252 7,525 12,332 12,338

All others2 394 377 878 754 1,025 426

Total

nonsubject 1,176 2,499 8,962 30,870 39,863 44,129

Value (1,000 dollars)

3

Cambodia 0 767 1,561 3,713 4,329 3,470

China 1,265 2,879 6,109 27,214 38,978 50,687

Indonesia 0 0 94 2,255 3,396 2,907

Malaysia 14 0 551 6,858 1,416 204

Thailand1 41 5 4,102 12,675 20,199 18,729

All others2 454 518 1,270 1,443 3,804 1,826

Total

nonsubject 1,775 4,169 13,686 54,159 72,121 77,823

Unit value (per pound)

Cambodia (

3

) $1.75 $1.55 $1.83 $1.84 $1.63

China $1.76 1.71 1.83 1.86 1.82 1.84

Indonesia (3) (3) 1.61 1.89 1.85 1.87

Malaysia 0.86 (

3

) 1.29 1.44 1.57 1.41

Thailand1 0.88 0.99 1.26 1.68 1.64 1.52

All others2 1.15 1.37 1.45 1.92 3.71 4.28

Total

nonsubject 1.51 1.67 1.53 1.75 1.81 1.76

 1 The domestic interested parties and U.S. importer *** questioned whether imports from Thailand are in part Vietnameseorigin frozen fish fillets. Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 49, and *** U.S. importer questionnaire, II-7(b).

 2

 All others includes Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Guyana, Hong Kong, India, Mexico, Singapore, Spain,

Taiwan. 

 3

 Landed, duty-paid.

Source: Compiled from official Commerce statistics.
 6

 Aquaculture is the farming of freshwater and saltwater organisms under controlled conditions.

 7

 Information in this section is adapted from the United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization’s National

Aquaculture Sector Overview. Viet Nam. Text by Nguyen, T.P. & Truong, H.M. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture

Department. Rome. Updated 10 October 2005. http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_vietnam/en.

IV-5

Table IV-3

Certain frozen fish fillets: U.S. importers’ end-of-period inventories of imports, by source, 2003-08

Item

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Imports from Vietnam:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of

 imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to total import shipments 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from all other sources:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of 

 imports (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

 Ratio to total import shipments 

 (percent) *** *** *** *** *** ***

Imports from all sources:

 Inventories (1,000 pounds) 39 1,457 2,118 7,466 4,798 5,377

 Ratio to imports (percent) 4.7 25.1 25.1 27.7 15.0 10.9

 Ratio to U.S. shipments of 

 imports (percent) 4.9 31.8 28.8 35.0 14.3 11.3

 Ratio to total import shipments 

 (percent) 4.9 31.8 28.8 34.6 14.1 11.3

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

THE INDUSTRY IN VIETNAM

Overview

Growth in the Vietnamese aquaculture sector6

 has been rapid in the last two decades owing to the

diversification of farming practices and the intense adaptation to the production of species for export.7

 

After Vietnamese reunification, the fisheries sector was identified as a key economic sector for the nation

for its importance in domestic food production. In the 1980s, buoyed by rapid export growth, the sector,

mainly aquaculture, grew further. Owing to the wide range of geographical and climatic conditions

throughout the country, different species are farmed in different regions. Shrimp and basa and tra are the

largest aquaculture products produced in Vietnam; they are raised primarily in the south in the Mekong

River Delta. Total aquaculture production was 1.15 million metric tons (2.535 billion pounds) on

902,900 hectares in 2004. Aquaculture production accounted for 60 percent of the $2.397 billion in

export earnings from the fisheries sector in 2004. 
 8

 Aquaculture share of total fisheries production increased from 31.2 percent in 1991 to 43.8 percent in 2003,

according to FAO.

 9

 Information in this section is adapted from the United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization’s National

Aquaculture Sector Overview. Viet Nam. Text by Nguyen, T.P. & Truong, H.M. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture

Department. Rome. Updated 10 October 2005. http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_vietnam/en.

 10 UN, FAO, FishStat database, 2007. 

 11 In VASEP’s response to the notice of institution, it reported its members’ 2007 production of certain frozen fish

fillets was *** pounds. VASEP’s response to the notice of institution, p. 3. These data only covered VASEP’s

reporting members during the response to the notice of institution (which were a smaller subset than in later VASEP

submissions). These data are substantially understated compared to export data submitted by VASEP during the

review and compared to the domestic interested parties’ estimate of Vietnamese production of certain frozen fish

fillets. 

 12 UN FAO, National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Viet Nam. Text by Nguyen, T.P. & Truong, H.M. In: FAO

Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome. Updated 10 October 2005.

http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_vietnam/en.

IV-6

Reports indicate that Vietnamese aquaculture production is likely to continue its upward trend8

and both domestic and export markets will expand to absorb the production increases. International

observers note that the challenges the Vietnamese industry faces moving forward include the increasing

international demand for high quality, safe and clean aquatic products and the need to regulate a rapidly

expanding sector faced with meeting international safety and quality standards, securing sufficient high

quality seed, a lack of capital for infrastructure investment, poorly educated farmers, and the lack of

skilled workers.9

Basa and Tra Operations in Vietnam

Production of basa (Pangasius hypophthalmus) and tra (Pangasius bocourti) is one of Vietnam’s

most developed aquaculture sectors along with the giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon). Typical culture

systems of the south for basa and tra production include pond, fence, and cage culture in high densities in

freshwater. Basa and tra production grew from 114,000 metric tons (251 million pounds), valued at $171

million, in 2001 to 850,000 metric tons (1.873 billion pounds), valued at $1.3 billion, in 2007 (table IV4).10 11 From 2001 to 2005, area under production grew from just over 2,000 ha to just over 4,000 ha. 

Yields of over 100 kg/m3

/crop from cage farming; 183-582 tons/ha/crop in pond farming (depending on

the stocking density); and 35 tons/ha/crop from fence farming have been reported.12 

Table IV-4

Basa and tra: Vietnamese production of basa and tra, 1997-2007 

Item 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Volume

(1,000 lb)

88,185 132,277 191,802 220,462 251,327 297,624 359,353 496,040 828,938 1,146,403 1,873,929

Value

($1,000)

64,000 96,000 121,800 140,000 171,000 202,500 244,500 382,500 564,000 780,000 1,275,000

Source: Global Aquaculture Production, FAOStat database.
 13 “MARD Plans Large Scale Catfish Production,” The Fish Site News Desk, March 27, 2009. 

 14 In November 2008, MARD announced targeted goals of increasing pangasius farming output to 2.76 billion

pounds by 2010, and to 4.08 billion pounds by 2020. Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, exhibit 14.

 15 UN FAO, National Aquaculture Sector Overview. Viet Nam. Text by Nguyen, T.P. & Truong, H.M. In: FAO

Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome. Updated 10 October 2005.

http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_vietnam/en.

 16 Reportedly, Vietnamese traders move frozen product to export markets quickly, due to the lack of cold storage

space. Helga Josupeit, FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, February 2009.

 17 Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, exhibit 17.

 18 USDA, FAS, GAIN Report, “Vietnam Fishery Products Annual Report,” June 2008 and domestic interested

parties’ prehearing brief, exhibit 16.

 19 Helga Josupeit, FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, February 2009.

 20 Helga Josupeit, FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, February 2009.

 21 Truong Tri Vinh, VASEP for FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, December 2005 “Increase in

Vietnamese Pangasius Sales to EU Markets.”

 22 VASEP foreign producers’/exporters’ questionnaire response, p. 5. Based on projected growth rates, domestic

interested parties estimate 2008 total Vietnamese capacity at *** pounds and production at *** pounds. Domestic

interested parties’ prehearing brief, exhibit 15.

 23 Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, exhibit 15.

IV-7

The Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) reportedly has

targeted the basa and tra sector, devising a plan coordinated with other government agencies to develop

farming and processing into a large-scale industry.13 14 In addition, the Ministry of Fisheries conducts

research on national aquaculture and has conducted research on the application of new technologies to

basa and tra production in both seed production and grow-out phases. Technologies for basa and tra feed

production have been improved resulting in less expensive, locally available raw materials which has

contributed to lower production costs for farmers.15

Many participants in the Vietnamese industry lack capital to invest in infrastructure, particularly

cold storage facilities for frozen product which for some processors is currently limited.16 Certain firms,

however, have recently announced expansion plans and increases in storage capacity.17 The Vietnamese

industry reportedly currently suffers from underutilized processing capacity and is importing fish for

processing from other countries such as China and Thailand.18

Recent rapid and unplanned expansion has lead to concerns of environmental pollution,

particularly of water. In addition, intense price competition reportedly results in overuse of glazing and

additives which reduce quality.19 The Vietnamese government reportedly encourages producers to agree

on a floor price to avoid unfair competition and encourage safe hygienic practices.20 Vietnamese

producers are reportedly aware that their global comparative advantage has been based on low prices

which may not be sustainable in the long term and unlikely to encourage production expansion. Some

Vietnamese firms are intensifying efforts to meet quality, hygiene and food safety standards in the EU.21

 In the Mekong delta region there are over 80 frozen fish fillets processors, with processing

capacity of *** tons of finished products in 2007 and *** tons in 2008.22 Four Vietnamese processing

plants have announced capacity expansion plans in 2009 totaling 656 million pounds.23 

The Commission sent questionnaires to 80 firms believed to produce frozen fish fillets in

Vietnam. A questionnaire response was received from one firm, ***. Export data were received from

VASEP for this review. VASEP is a non-governmental organization with 235 members which includes

Vietnamese seafood producers, exporters, and companies providing services to the seafood sector. 

VASEP reported that it’s members represent 80 percent of total seafood exports (including frozen fish

fillets) from Vietnam. As shown in table IV-5, Vietnam’s exports of frozen fish fillets to the United

States decreased as a share of total exports from 2003 to 2008, and the share of exports to other markets

increased. The European Union was the largest export market for VASEP from 2004-07. Poland, Spain,
 24 Truong Tri Vinh, FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, November 2007.

IV-8

and Netherlands are the main EU markets. The depreciation of the U.S. dollar against the euro during the

period increased EU purchasing power, making the EU one of Vietnam’s most attractive markets.24 In

2008, other markets, including specifically Russia and Ukraine, combined, became the largest export

destination. 

Table IV-5

Certain frozen fish fillets: Vietnam’s exports, by country, 2003-08

Source

Calendar year

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Quantity (1,000 pounds)

United States 19,689 31,349 32,548 53,531 46,728 53,305

European Union 14,727 49,431 121,632 271,632 381,111 494,516

China/Hong Kong 15,889 40,289 36,053 38,972 40,155 40,827

ASEAN 10,845 25,039 48,550 62,864 74,385 74,853

All other markets1 12,273 36,791 71,419 204,840 310,514 749,271

 Total 73,423 182,898 310,202 631,839 852,893 1,412,772

Share of export quantity (percent)

United States 26.8 17.1 10.5 8.5 5.5 3.8

European Union 20.1 27.0 39.2 43.0 44.7 35.0

China/Hong Kong 21.6 22.0 11.6 6.2 4.7 2.9

ASEAN 14.8 13.7 15.7 9.9 8.7 5.3

All other markets1 16.7 20.1 23.0 32.4 36.4 53.0

 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Value (1,000 dollars)

United States 24,228 43,150 35,258 72,872 67,606 78,559

European Union 17,755 67,097 139,393 343,427 469,541 581,500

China/Hong Kong 15,509 44,479 32,379 37,377 38,803 35,975

ASEAN 9,497 23,499 40,604 62,835 77,612 75,751

All other markets1 14,910 50,771 80,518 220,361 325,473 681,314

 Total 81,899 228,995 328,153 736,872 979,036 1,453,098

Unit value (dollars per pound)

United States $1.23 $1.38 $1.08 $1.36 $1.45 $1.47

European Union 1.21 1.36 1.15 1.26 1.23 1.18

China/Hong Kong 0.98 1.10 0.90 0.96 0.97 0.88

ASEAN 0.88 0.94 0.84 1.00 1.04 1.01

All other markets1 1.21 1.38 1.13 1.08 1.05 0.91

 Total 1.12 1.25 1.06 1.17 1.15 1.03

 1 All other markets include Australia, Russia, and Ukraine.

Source: Compiled from export data submitted by VASEP.
 25 Gerry O’Sullivan, FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, July 2006.

 26 Nick Holmyard, FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, November 2008.

 27 Domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit 1, p. 40.

 28 Helga Josupeit and Nicole Franz, “Aquaculture - Trade, Trends, Standards and Outlooks,” FAO Fisheries

Department, January 2004 (ppt).

 29 Helga Josupeit and Nicole Franz, “Aquaculture - Trade, Trends, Standards and Outlooks,” FAO Fisheries

Department, January 2004 (ppt).

 30 Developed countries’ share of global aquaculture production was 9 percent in 2001.

 31 “Global Fish Trade Overview,” EUROFISH FAO Workshop, Split, Croatia, May 2007.

 32 Some of the hazards associated with aquaculture include: pollution contaminating pond and tank water,

contaminated feeds, abuse of veterinary drugs, and parasites in freshwater fish.

IV-9

Despite the initial decline in exports to the United States, total Vietnamese exports grew steadily

as increasingly more product was shipped to the EU. This expansion into the EU market reportedly is

owed to increasing penetration among European grocery chains, where retail promotional activities

moved basa and tra from marginal to mainstream status.25 In the EU, Vietnamese basa and tra are

considered less expensive alternatives to white fish, which is increasingly expensive in the EU due to

reduced landings and quota policies. EU firms import frozen basa and tra fillets and perform their own

value-added operations.26

In 2006, Russian imports of Vietnamese basa and tra increased considerably. However, in

December 2008, Russia banned all pangasius imports from Vietnam following the discovery of some

contaminated products. Although the ban was recently partially lifted, only 10 Vietnamese processing

plants are authorized to export to Russia.27 In 2007 and 2008, Vietnamese exports to the United States

rebounded, despite the antidumping order. In 2008, Polish imports of Vietnamese basa and tra dropped

off while Russian and Ukrainian imports grew rapidly along with smaller, developing markets such as

Egypt and Mexico.

GLOBAL MARKET

Global aquaculture production reached nearly 48.4 million metric tons (106.7 billion pounds) in

2001, up from 11.3 million tons (24.9 billion pounds) in 1985.28 Trends indicate that capture capacity for

many species has reached its limit, making aquaculture production more important in supplying growing

global demand for fish and fish products, which is predicted to grow by more than 50 percent by 2030.29

The global share of aquaculture production accounted for by developed countries is low.30 Growth in the

sector has been almost entirely from developing countries, for whom export revenues of aquaculture

species are crucial components of GDP. In 2005, China accounted for 67 percent of global aquaculture

production, followed by India (6 percent), and Vietnam (3 percent).31 Much of current production in

developing countries is relatively immature and commonly accepted global rules, particularly with regard

to production practices and food safety, have not been developed.32
 33 FAO. © 2006-2009. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. China. Text by Shuping, C. In: FAO Fisheries

and Aquaculture Department. Rome. Updated 1 February 2005.

http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_china/en.

 34 Helga Josupeit, FAO Globefish, Catfish Market Report, December 2007.

 35 FAO Globefish, Catfish Market Report, January 2008.

 36 Information in this section is drawn largely from FAO. 8 2006-2009. National Aquaculture Sector Overview.

Thailand. Text by Pongsri, C. and Sukumasavin, N. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome.

Updated 1 February 2005. http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_thailand/en.

 37 Thai aquaculture production began to grow rapidly beginning in the late 1980s, from just over 200,000 metric

tons (441 million pounds) in 1988 to 1.39 million metric tons (3.1 billion pounds) in 2007.

IV-10

Supply Considerations

Vietnam is by far the largest global producer of basa and tra. Other major producers of catfish

are the United States and China. The main exporters of catfish (regardless of species) are Vietnam, China,

Thailand, Malaysia, and some Sub-Saharan African countries, including Tanzania. 

China has a long history of aquaculture and in the last several decades it has become one of the

country’s fastest growing agriculture sectors. The industry originally focused on carp production and

although it has expanded into other species, carp currently accounts for almost three-quarters of Chinese

freshwater aquaculture production. In 2003, total aquaculture production was 30.28 million metric tons

(66.8 billion pounds) covering 7,104 million hectares.33 This production mainly serves China’s domestic

market, as less than 5 percent of Chinese aquaculture production is processed for export. Nonetheless,

China is a major exporter of fish products, mainly frozen shrimp (mainly to the United States), baked eel

(to Japan), and frozen tilapia fillets (to the United States). 

Various species, including the species of catfish grown in the United States (Ictalurus), have been

introduced in China from abroad for commercial cultivation. Chinese catfish production in 2006 was

120,000 metric tons (265 million pounds).34 Chinese catfish production takes place in over 20 provinces

in pond culture, cage culture and running water culture. Catfish for export is mainly produced by cage

culture.35

Aquaculture production in Thailand in 2007 was 1.39 million metric tons (3.1 billion pounds) and

accounted for about one-quarter of fisheries production.36 In 2002, total aquaculture production

contributed 2.07 percent of total GDP.37 Freshwater aquaculture accounts for about one-third of total

aquaculture production and is mainly for domestic consumption and marketed as fresh products. The

main fresh water species grown are Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) hybrid catfish (Clarias

macrocephalus X C. Gariepinus), and silver barb (Barbodes gonionotus). Catfish (Clarias sp.)

production in 2003 was 86,475 metric tons (190.6 million pounds), or 30 percent of total freshwater

aquaculture production. Although this species of catfish is preferred by growers because it grows faster

than native species, the production per unit has been decreasing in recent times, possibly due to the

quality of the original male stock introduced for cultivation. A Sutchi catfish (Pangasianodon

hypophthalmus) is also produced in Thailand, accounting for 5 percent of total freshwater aquaculture

production in 2003. Saltwater aquaculture production in Thailand, particularly barramundi (Lates

calcarifer), grouper (Epinephalus sp.), and shellfish (mussels, shrimp, and prawn), is higher value than

freshwater and is mainly for export. 
 38 Gerry O’Sullivan, FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, July 2006.

 39 Truong Tri Vinh, FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, November 2007.

 40 Helga Josupeit and Nicole Franz, “Aquaculture - Trade, trends, Standards and Outlooks,” FAO Fisheries

Department, January 2004 (ppt).

 41 FAO. © 2006-2009. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. China. Text by Shuping, C. In: FAO Fisheries

and Aquaculture Department. Rome. Updated 1 February 2005.

Http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_china/en.

 42 FAO. © 2006-2009. National Aquaculture Sector Overview. China. Text by Shuping, C. In: FAO Fisheries

and Aquaculture Department. Rome. Updated 1 February 2005.

Http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/naso_china/en.

 43 FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, May 2007.

 44 Truong Tri Vinh, FAO Globefish, Pangasius Market Report, November 2007.

 45 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “FDA Detains Imports of Farm-Raised Chinese Seafood,” Press Release,

June 28, 2007.

 46 Helga Josupeit, FAO Globefish, Catfish Market Report, December 2007.

 47 FAO Globefish, Catfish Market Report, January 2008.

 48 U.S. producer, importer, and purchaser questionnaire responses, sections IV-15b and 16b, III-20b and 21b, and

III-11b and III-12b, respectively.

IV-11

Demand Considerations

The growing global demand for white fish can be attributed to consumer interest in the health

benefits of fish and food safety issues surrounding beef and poultry (i.e., BSE and Avian flu outbreaks).

Static or declining supplies of traditional white fish species has increased market interest in price

competitive aquaculture products.38 Vietnam is the major exporter of basa and tra to global markets.

Vietnam’s competitive advantage in basa and tra production comes from favorable natural growing

conditions and low labor costs, however similar conditions in China have led to strong competition,

particularly in the EU market.39 However, frozen fish fillets from both Vietnam and China have faced

challenges in their growing markets, particularly in the United States and Russia (Vietnam) and in the EU

and the United States (China).

In 2001, the EU issued a regulation on fish labeling and traceability in order to protect the

consumer.40 The EU was closed to Chinese aquaculture products from January 2002 to July 2004 when

residues were found on imported Chinese fish products.41 At the end of 2002, the Chinese government

implemented a voluntary program to guide its aquaculture production in a sustainable, responsible and

healthy way.42

In October 2006, the Russian Federal Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance Service (VPSS)

adopted new regulations for food safety inspections of Vietnamese basa and tra at the border. Shipments

had been found without proper documentation for approved processing plants by Russian inspectors.43

This resulted in reduced shipments to Russia.44 Increased exports to the Ukraine made up for the Russian

decline.

In June 2007 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began to detain imports of Chinese farmraised seafood products when samples were found to contain chemical residues.45 A protocol for

inspection and control for Chinese food products, including cultured seafood like catfish, was reached in

the end of 2007 and U.S. imports of Chinese catfish began to increase again.46 Chinese exporters must

obtain an exemption on export restrictions by “requalifying within HACCP system.”47

U.S. processors, U.S. importers, and U.S. purchasers of certain frozen fish fillets were requested

in their questionnaire responses to comment on demand for certain frozen fish fillets outside of the United

States since January 1, 2003 and anticipated in the future.48 Useable responses are summarized in the

following tabulation.
IV-12

Changes in demand for certain frozen fish fillets outside of the United States

Types of firms

Number of firms responding

Increase Decrease Fluctuate No change

Demand changes since January 2003

U.S. processors1 12 - 3

U.S. importers2 2- 1 3

U.S. purchasers 7 - - 2

Total 10 2 1 8

Demand changes anticipated in the future

U.S. processors3 -- 24

U.S. importers4 3- 1 2

U.S. purchasers 5 - 3 4

Total 8 0 6 10

 1 Nine other U.S. processors reported that they did not know how foreign demand changed.

 2

 Four other U.S. importers reported that they did not know how foreign demand changed.

 3

 Nine other U.S. processors reported that they did not know how foreign demand would change in

the future.

 4

 Two other U.S. importers reported that it did not know how foreign demand would change in the

future.

A small majority of questionnaire responses indicate that foreign demand for certain frozen fish

fillets increased since January 2003, but a small majority of responses for anticipated future foreign

demand indicate no change in future demand.

Considering historical foreign demand for certain frozen fish fillets, the responding firms that

indicated increased demand cited a number of reasons, including availability, price, and price

competitiveness, mild taste, and the general perception that seafood is a healthy nutritious food. One of

the responding firms asserting increased demand, ***, a U.S. importer, provided the following additional

comments: “Foreign demand increased as Vietnam established strong marketing efforts of the Pangasius

fish fillets in such countries as Russia, Spain, and Mexico. Value pricing of the Vietnamese product

compared to other fish fillets, especially that of wild species. Quality and standards of the 

Vietnamese fish have improved. Consistency of volume due to strong aquaculture developments in

Vietnam.” The firms that indicated decreased demand cited price, currency fluctuations, and availability.

The firms that indicated fluctuating demand cited price and availability. The firms that cited no change in

demand did not provide any explanations.

With respect to future foreign demand for certain frozen fish fillets, the firms that anticipate

increased future demand cited decreasing supply of alternative wild-caught fish species, the current

economic climate favors less expensive fish, and for many of the other reasons cited above for increased

demand during the historical period. No firms anticipated a decrease in foreign demand. The firms that

anticipate fluctuating foreign demand cited the current economic crisis, supply, cost, and quality. The

firms that anticipate no change in foreign demand did not provide any explanations.
 49 Truong Tri Vinh, VASEP for FAO Globefish, “Increase in Vietnamese Pangasius Sales to EU Markets,”

Pangasius Market Report, December 2005.

 50 FAO, Pangasius Market Report, May 2007.

 51 Helga Josupeit, FAO Globefish, Catfish Market Report, September 2008. 

 52 Helga Josupeit, FAO Globefish, Catfish Market Report, September 2008.

 53 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-20 and III-23, respectively.

IV-13

Prices

Price fluctuations for frozen fish fillets generally reflect global supply and demand conditions.

Vietnamese unit values tend to be consistently lower in the EU with respect to other suppliers. In fact, in

2005, the low prices for Vietnamese basa and tra were reportedly putting downward pressure on other

substitute products, such as Nile perch.49 Supply shortages in 2006 caused global prices to rise

considerably (by 40-50 percent from 2006 to 2007).50 Global prices also increased throughout 2008 due

to scarcity of supplies.51 Nonetheless, wide prices differences exist in various national and regional

markets. For example, prices in Russia in 2008 were about $1 per pound below those paid in the EU.52

Such price differences may reflect a variety of factors, including substantial variations in fish size and

quality.

U.S. processors and importers of the certain frozen fish fillets were requested in their

questionnaire responses to compare market prices of these products in the U.S. and non-U.S. markets.53

Fourteen U.S. processors of the frozen catfish fillets and seven U.S. importers of the certain frozen fish

fillets, including the frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam, responded. However, 13 of the 14

responding U.S. processors and four of the seven responding U.S. importers reported that they did not

have such information. The remaining U.S. processor and three U.S. importers provided some comments. 

***, asserted that “prices vary by market due to freight differences and competitive offerings both

domestically and imported.” Two of the three U.S. importers, ***, indicated that prices in the U.S.

market were higher, and *** specifically attributed the higher prices to the antidumping duty order. The

remaining importer providing comments, ***, asserted that “certain frozen fish fillets are a global

commodity. When unencumbered by duties, the U.S. market competes evenly for purchases, but when

subject to duties, competing markets have a significant advantage.” 

 1

 Part II discusses in detail substitution between certain frozen fish fillets and alternative products and

substitution between the U.S.-produced frozen catfish fillets and imports of the certain frozen fish fillets from

nonsubject countries.

 2 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, section III-10.

 3 Ibid. Most of the raw material consists of live catfish; breading and marinade for the value-added frozen fillets

and other incidentals comprise the remainder of raw materials.

 4 The quarterly price data were calculated as simple averages of monthly price data reported by the USDA. U.S.

processors of frozen catfish fillets typically purchase the live catfish on a spot basis. Staff telephone interview with

***.

 5 Statistical correlation can quantify the degree to which these selling and purchase prices move together. A

frequent measure of statistical correlation is a linear correlation coefficient, where a coefficient of 1 indicates perfect

correlation, declining values indicate progressively decreasing correlation, and a correlation coefficient of zero

indicates no correlation between the data series. The correlation coefficients between quarterly selling prices of the

frozen catfish fillet products and the purchase prices of live catfish ranged from 0.87 involving product 4 to 0.98

involving product 2 during January 2003-December 2008.

V-1

PART V: PRICING AND RELATED INFORMATION

FACTORS AFFECTING PRICING

U.S. prices of certain frozen fish fillets can fluctuate based on demand factors such as overall

U.S. economic activity, seasonal U.S. demand, and sectoral demand, particularly in restaurant and grocery

store retailing. On the supply side, prices of certain frozen fish fillets fluctuate based on the cost of the

live fish, which in turn, is affected substantially by the cost of feed; prices may also fluctuate due to

seasonal domestic supply factors and due to a number of product specifications, including, but not

restricted to, the size of the fillets, whether regular, shank, or strip fillets, and whether plain, breaded, or

marinated. In addition, the prices of certain frozen fish fillets can fluctuate due to quantities contracted

and the relative bargaining strength between purchasers and suppliers. U.S. prices of certain frozen fish

fillets may also be affected by prices of alternative fish products, including certain fresh fish fillets.1

Raw Material Costs

Total raw materials used to process frozen catfish fillets averaged 72.9 percent of U.S.

processors’ total cost of goods sold during 2003-08.2

 The primary raw material used to process domestic

frozen catfish fillets is U.S. live farm-raised catfish. U.S. processors reported that the cost of live catfish

averaged 71.9 percent of the cost of goods sold of their frozen catfish fillets during 2003-08.3

Quarterly prices and quantities of U.S. live farm-raised catfish shipped to U.S. processors of

frozen catfish fillets during January 2003-December 2008 are shown in figure V-1.4

 Quarterly shipment

prices of live catfish fluctuated but generally increased during this period, while quantities fluctuated but

generally decreased. From a period low of $0.55 per pound during January-March 2003, live catfish

prices increased to a period high of almost $0.84 per pound during January-March 2007, then fluctuated

but ended at $0.82 per pound by October-December 2008, for an increase of 49.1 percent over the entire

period. As seen in tables V-1 through V-4 and figure V-1, the U.S. processors’ quarterly selling prices of

the specified frozen catfish fillet products and their quarterly purchase prices of live catfish trended

closely together during January 2003-December 2008.5
 6

 During the first quarter of each year, shipment quantities of live catfish to processors fell almost steadily from

58.7 million pounds during January-March 2003 to 47.2 million pounds during January-March 2008, or by almost 20

percent. During the final quarter of each year, shipment quantities fell steadily from 52.5 million pounds during

October-December 2003 to 37.3 million pounds during October-December 2008, or by almost 29 percent.

 7 Catfish farms purchase feed from mills that specialize in and produce only catfish feed (E-mail from ***). 

Feed costs typically account for *** percent of catfish farmers production costs (staff telephone interview with ***). 

Catfish feed is made of soybeans, corn, and wheat, although corn gluten instead of corn meal has been used to some

extent to reduce the price of feed by $50 to $60 per ton. Fuel, Feed costs crippling U.S. catfish industry, June 23,

2008, provided in domestic interested parties’ response to the notice of institution, exhibit 16. 

 8 U.S. producer questionnaire responses, sections IV-14 and IV-21.

V-2

Figure V-1

Live catfish: Quarterly selling prices and quantities (weight) of live farm-raised catfish shipped to

U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets during January 2003-December 2008

Source: NASS, USDA, Monthly Catfish Report, 

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/ViewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1015, retrieved March 13, 2009.

Quarterly shipment quantities of the live catfish to U.S. processors began at a period high of 58.7

million pounds during January-March 2003 and decreased irregularly to end at a period low of 37.3

million pounds during October-December 2008, for a total decrease of 36.5 percent. Due at least partially

to seasonality in demand for the frozen catfish fillets, the largest quarterly shipments occurred in the first

quarter of each year, while the smallest quarterly shipments typically occurred in the final quarter of each

year. The declining shipment trends were also evident when comparing shipment quantities in the first

quarter of each year and the last quarter of each year.6

Generally rising feed prices increased U.S. farmers’ cost to produce the live catfish during 2003-

08,7

 but reportedly farmers were not always able to raise their selling prices sufficiently to cover their

higher costs.8

 During this period, several farmers reportedly drained some of their catfish ponds and
 9

 *** U.S. producer questionnaire response, section IV-21; *** purchaser questionnaire response, section III-9;

and *** purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-14.

 10 Catfish Production, USDA, NASS, February 5, 2004 and January 30, 2009 issues.

 11 Catfish Production, USDA, NASS, January 30, 2009 issue.

 12 U.S. producers questionnaire responses, section IV-22.

 13 The quarterly price data were calculated as simple averages of monthly price data reported by Mississippi State

University. U.S. catfish farmers buy up to *** percent of their annual feed requirements on an annual contract basis,

especially if future feed prices are expected to increase; the remaining requirements are purchased on a ***. E-mail

from ***.

 14 The correlation coefficient between quarterly prices of live catfish and the quarterly purchase prices of catfish

feed was approximately 0.41 during January 2003-December 2008.

V-3

switched the use of some of the reclaimed land to more profitable uses, such as corn, cotton, and soybeans

production.9

 Water surface acres used for U.S. catfish production decreased by 12.9 percent during 2003-

08, from a period high of 187,200 acres in 2003 to a period low of 163,100 acres in 2008.10 Water

surface acres for catfish production in 2009 are estimated to be 146,900 acres, 9.9 percent lower than in

2008.11 U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets indicated that rising costs to catfish farmers have reduced

the supply of U.S. live farm-raised catfish and projected that declining supply will continue in the

future.12

Quarterly prices of feed to U.S. producers of farm-raised catfish during January 2003-December

2008 are shown for 28-percent protein feed and 32-percent protein feed in figure V-2.13 Quarterly prices

of the 32-percent protein feed were somewhat higher than the 28-percent protein feed throughout 2003-

08, while both price series followed the same trends during this period. Because of this similarity in

trends, only prices of the 32-percent protein feed are discussed here. Quarterly prices of the 32-percent

protein feed to U.S. catfish farmers began at a period-low of $224.33 per ton in January-March 2003 and

increased to $300.67 per ton by April-June 2004, before generally decreasing to equal the period-low

level of $224.33 per ton by January-March 2005. Quarterly prices then fluctuated but generally increased

to a period high of $428.33 per ton by July-September 2008, before decreasing to end at $368.67 per ton

in October-December 2008, for an increase of 64.3 percent over the entire period. Thus while the

quarterly prices of live catfish in figure V-1 and quarterly prices of feed in figure V-2 both increased, they

did not trend closely together during 2003-08.14 One explanation for the weak relationship in the

movement of these prices during this period may be that U.S. catfish farmers sell their live catfish on a

spot basis and purchase a portion of their feed on an annual contract basis.
 15 As a ratio to the landed duty-paid value of certain frozen fish fillets, these transportation charges averaged 7.6

percent for Vietnam during this period.

 16 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-10a and III-10a, respectively; responding

U.S. processors and importers of certain frozen fish fillets reported that they generally arranged U.S.-inland freight

to their U.S. customers (U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-10b and III-10b,

respectively).

V-4

Figure V-2

Catfish feed: Quarterly prices of feed to U.S. catfish farmers, by protein content, during January

2003-December 2008

Source: Mississippi State University, Agricultural Economics Department, 

http://www.agecon.msstate.edu/rsearch/catfish2007db.php, retrieved March 15, 2009.

Tariff Rates and Transportation Costs to the U.S. Market

The U.S. import duty rate under HTS statistical reporting numbers 0304.20.6030/6032/6033 and

0304.29.6032/6033 were free for imports of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam during January 2003-

December 2008. Transportation charges to ship frozen fish fillets from Vietnam to the U.S. ports of

entry, as a ratio to the U.S. official customs value, averaged 8.2 percent during 2003-08.15 This 

transport cost ratio fluctuated during the period, reaching a high of 13.4 percent during 2005 and then

falling to a low of 6.9 percent in 2007, before ending at 8.0 percent during 2008.

U.S.-Inland Transportation Costs

Fifteen responding U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and seven responding U.S. importers

of frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam reported the average U.S. freight costs to their U.S. customers’

locations.16 U.S.-inland freight costs for domestic frozen catfish fillets averaged 5.0 percent of the

delivered prices, and U.S.-inland freight costs of imported frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam

averaged 2.3 percent of the delivered prices. The 15 responding U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets
 17 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-10c and III-10c, respectively.

 18 U.S. processors typically shipped their frozen catfish fillets from their processing locations, whereas two of the

five responding U.S. importers reported shipping the frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam from their U.S. storage

facilities, two other U.S. importers reported shipping from their U.S. port(s) of entry, and the sole remaining

importer did not report its shipping location. Ibid. 

 19 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-19 and III-22, respectively.

 20 Hearing transcript, pp. 149-152 (Klett and Renfroe) and domestic interested parties’ posthearing brief, exhibit

1, pp. 50-52.

V-5

and the seven responding U.S. importers of frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam estimated their U.S.

shipments of the domestic and subject imported products, during 2003-08, that were shipped to U.S.

customers in three specified distance categories.17 The U.S. processors’ and importers’ reported shipment

shares of the domestic and subject imported certain frozen fish fillets, by distance categories from their

U.S. selling locations,18 are shown in the following tabulation.

Distance shipped

Share of U.S. shipments during 2003-08

(percent)

U.S. frozen catfish

fillets

Imported frozen basa

and tra fillets from

Vietnam

Within 100 miles 8.0 ***

101 to 1,000 miles 76.1 ***

Over 1,000 miles 15.9 ***

Total 100.0 100.0

Fifteen U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets, seven U.S. importers of frozen basa and tra fillets

from Vietnam, and three U.S. importers of certain frozen fish fillets from all other countries reported the

U.S. geographic market area(s) during 2008 that they shipped their domestic and subject imported certain

frozen fish fillets.19 The weighted-average U.S. shipment shares by each of the specified geographic areas

for the subject products processed domestically, imported from Vietnam, and imported from all other

countries are shown in the tabulation on the following page.

U.S. processors testified that, while a significant volume of subject imports enters the United

States through the West Coast, these imports are further distributed and compete with domestic catfish

throughout the country.20
 21 A producer price index was not available for Vietnam such that only the nominal exchange rate index could be

shown for this country. The exchange rate index was based on exchange rates expressed in U.S. dollars per unit of

the foreign currency, such that index numbers below 100 represent depreciation and numbers above 100 represent

appreciation of the foreign currency vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar.

V-6

U.S. geographic

area

Share of U.S. shipments in 2008 (percent)

U.S. frozen

catfish fillets

Imported frozen

basa and tra

fillets from

Vietnam

Imported certain

frozen fish fillets

from all other

countries

Northeast1 2.5 *** ***

Midwest2 14.1 *** ***

Southeast3 42.5 *** ***

Central Southwest4 35.7 *** ***

Mountains5 2.2 *** ***

Pacific Coast6 2.6 *** ***

Other7 0.3 *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

 1 Includes CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, NY, PA, RI, and VT.

 2

 Includes IL, IN, IA,KS, MI, MN, MO, NE, ND, OH, SD, and WI.

 3

 Includes AL, DE, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, and WV.

 4

 Includes AR, LA, OK, and TX.

 5

 Includes AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, UT, and WY.

 6

 Includes CA, OR, and WA.

 7

 Includes all other markets in the United States not previously listed, including AK, HI,

PR, VI, among others.

Note.–Totals may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Exchange Rates

Figure V-3 shows quarterly nominal exchange rate indices of the Vietnamese Dong relative to the

U.S. dollar during January 2003-December 2008.21 The quarterly nominal exchange rate for the

Vietnamese dong against the U.S. dollar generally decreased during January 2003-December 2008, by 7.7

percent (figure V-3).
 22 Information on pricing practices discussed in this section was based on questionnaire responses of the U.S.

processors of frozen catfish fillets and importers of frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam, unless otherwise noted.

 23 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-6 and III-6, respectively.

V-7

Figure V-3

Nominal exchange rate index of the Vietnamese dong relative to the U.S. dollar, by quarters,

January 2003-December 2008

Note.--Index (Jan.-Mar. 2003=100). Exchange rates are in U.S. dollars per Vietnamese dong.

Source: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics, online, http://imfstatistics.org/imf, retrieved

February 19, 2009.

PRICING PRACTICES22

U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and U.S. importers of frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam sell the majority of their products to food service distributors, much of the remainder to other

purchasers, and some direct sales by U.S. processors to restaurants. The food service distributors sell to

restaurants, grocery stores, other retailers (e.g., cafeterias, military, etc.), and to other distributors. The

majority of U.S. sales of the domestic and imported certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam is typically

sold on a spot basis with most of the remaining sales sold on a short-term basis. Sixteen U.S. processors

of the frozen catfish fillets and seven U.S. importers of the frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam

reported their 2008 U.S. shipments by type of sale.23 Shares of the 2008 U.S. commercial shipment
 24 Spot sales are usually one-time delivery, within 30 days of the purchase agreement; short-term sales are for

multiple deliveries for up to 12 months after the purchase agreement; and long-term sales are for multiple deliveries

for more than 12 months after the purchase agreement. Short-term and long-term sales can be arranged by contracts

or verbal agreements.

 25 None of the 26 responding U.S. purchasers of certain frozen fish fillets reported buying their products on the

internet. U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-35.

 26 U.S. purchaser questionnaires, section III-20.

 27 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-3 and III-3, respectively.

 28 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-8 and III-8, respectively.

V-8

quantities of the domestically produced and subject imported certain frozen fish fillets, by type of sale,24

are shown in the following tabulation.25

Type of sale

Share of U.S. shipments in 2008 (percent)

U.S. frozen catfish fillets

Imported frozen basa

and tra fillets from

Vietnam

Spot sales 71.4 ***

Short-term sales 28.0 ***

Long-term sales 0.7 ***

Total 100.0 100.0

Note.–Figures may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Twenty-six purchasers reported on the frequency of their purchases of certain frozen fish fillets.26

Twenty-one purchasers reported buying their certain frozen fish fillets daily, weekly, biweekly, or

monthly. One of these latter firms reported also purchasing the products quarterly and annually. One

other firm reported purchasing the products annually and the four remaining purchasers reported

purchasing the products as needed.

Sixteen U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and six U.S. importers of frozen basa and tra

fillets from Vietnam reported that they generally determined price on an individual transaction basis,

especially for large-quantity and contract customers.27 The firms used their price lists when selling to

small-quantity customers; ***. ***. 

Eleven U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and two U.S. importers of frozen basa and tra

fillets from Vietnam reported the terms of their short-term contracts.28 The U.S. processors reported that

(1) contract periods ranged from 1 to 12 months; (2) prices were generally not renegotiated; (3) contracts

typically specified price, but sometimes quantity also; and (4) contracts generally did not have meet or

release provisions. The two responding U.S. importers reported that (1) contract periods ranged from 45

days to six months; (2) they were split between whether prices could be renegotiated; (3) contracts fixed

both price and quantity; and (4) contracts had meet or release provisions.
 29 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-4 and III-4, respectively.

 30 Three of these seven processors also reported offering ***. Ibid. 

 31 One of these five U.S. importers, ***. Ibid.

 32 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-5 and III-5, respectively.

 33 Fifteen of the 16 responding U.S. processors and six of the seven responding importers reported arranging

freight to their U.S. customers’ locations. The remaining U.S. processor and importer reported that their customers

arranged the freight. U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-10 and III-10, respectively.

 34 U.S. producer and importer questionnaire responses, sections IV-9 and III-9, respectively. 

V-9

Sixteen responding U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and seven responding U.S. importers

of frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam reported on discount policies.29 Eight U.S. processors

reported offering quantity discounts, two of which offered annual quantity discounts,30 and the remaining

eight processors reported having no discount policy. Five of the seven responding importers reported

offering quantity discounts,31 and the remaining two importers reported having no discount polity.

Sixteen responding U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and seven U.S. importers of frozen

basa and tra fillets from Vietnam reported how they quote their prices and the payment terms that they

offer on their U.S. sales of certain frozen fish fillets.32 Eleven of the 16 U.S. processors reported selling

their products on a delivered price basis and the remaining 5 reported selling on an f.o.b. U.S. plant basis. 

Three of the seven U.S. importers reported selling their products on a delivered basis, two reported selling

on an f.o.b. U.S. location basis, and the remaining two reported selling on both delivered and f.o.b.

bases.33 The 16 responding U.S. processors reported offering payment terms that ranged from net 7 days

to net 30 days, whereas the seven responding importers reported offering payment terms of net 30 days,

although one of these importers reported also offering net 10 days, but only for container orders.

Fifteen U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and six U.S. importers of frozen basa and tra

fillets from Vietnam reported their lead times for delivery of their products and shipment shares that were

from inventory and from production during 2008.34 The shipment shares and lead times are shown in the

following tabulation.

Shipment source

U.S. frozen catfish fillets

Imported frozen basa and tra

fillets from Vietnam

Share of U.S.

shipments in

2008 (percent)

Lead time

(days)

1

Share of U.S.

shipments in

2008 (percent)

Lead time

(days)

1

U.S. inventory 78.2 5 *** ***

U.S. production 21.8 11 *** ***

Vietnam inventory - - *** ***

Vietnam production - - *** ***

Total 100.0 100.0

 1 Average lead times were rounded to a full day.
 35 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-32.

 36 One of these six purchasers, ***, asserted that the live fish market determines price changes.

 37 The same four specified products were used for pricing data in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets, Inv. No. 731-TA1012 (Final). The domestic interested parties, the only parties commenting on the draft questionnaires in this

review, did not comment specifically about the pricing products.

V-10

U.S. purchasers were requested to identify any price leaders in the U.S. market for certain frozen

fish fillets since 2003.35 Fourteen purchasers responded; 6 firms indicated that no price leaders existed,36

whereas the remaining 8 firms identified a total of 13 suppliers that they considered price leaders. Of the

13 suppliers identified as price leaders, 5 were U.S. processors, 3 were U.S. importers, and the remaining

5 firms were distributors. Identified most frequently as a price leader was ***, followed by ***.

PRICE DATA

U.S. selling value and quantity data were requested from U.S. processors and importers for sales

to all their unrelated U.S. customers for the following certain frozen fish fillet products produced in the

United States and imported from Vietnam:37

Product 1.--2 to 3 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to 22

lb. boxes.

Product 2.--over 3 ounce to 5 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in

15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

Product 3.--over 5 ounce to 7 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in

15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

Product 4.--over 7 ounce to 9 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in

15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

U.S. processors and importers were requested to report their quarterly net U.S. f.o.b. selling price

data for their respective shipments of the specified domestic frozen catfish fillets and the imported frozen

basa and tra fillets from Vietnam during January 2003-December 2008.

Fifteen U.S. processors of frozen catfish fillets and six U.S. importers of frozen basa and tra

fillets from Vietnam reported useable selling price information, but not necessarily for all periods or all

products. The responding U.S. processors reported total sales quantities of the U.S.-produced frozen

catfish fillets for pricing purposes during January 2003-December 2008 that amounted to 257,505,707

pounds, or 43.9 percent of their total reported U.S. commercial shipments of the U.S.-produced frozen

catfish fillets during this period. The responding U.S. importers reported total sales quantities for pricing

purposes during January 2003-December 2008 that amounted to 64,828,818 pounds of frozen basa and tra

from Vietnam, which accounted for 27.3 percent of total reported U.S. imports of the subject products

from Vietnam during this period.

The total sales quantities of the specified certain frozen fish fillet products for which U.S.

processors and importers reported their requested pricing data during January 2003-December 2008 are

shown in the following tabulation.
 38 Domestic interested parties’ prehearing brief, p. 13, fn. 56.

V-11

Quantities of certain frozen fish fillets (1,000 pounds)

Products

U.S. frozen

catfish fillets

Imported frozen basa

and tra fillets from

Vietnam Totals

Product 11 18,252 *** ***

Product 22 107,583 *** ***

Product 33 91,898 *** ***

Product 44 39,774 *** ***

Totals 257,507 64,831 322,338

 1 Product 1 consists of 2 to 3 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to

22 lb. boxes.

 2

 Product 2 consists of over 3 ounce to 5 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated,

in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

 3

 Product 3 consists of over 5 ounce to 7 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated,

in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

 4

 Product 4 consists of over 7 ounce to 9 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated,

in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes. 

The domestic frozen catfish fillet products 2 and 3, which consisted of the medium size fillets,

were respectively the largest-quantity domestic products and quarterly prices of these products each

averaged about $2.80 per pound during 2003-08. The domestic product 1, which consisted of the

smallest fillets and was the lowest-quantity product, was similar in price, averaging $2.79 per pound

during this period, and the domestic product 4, which consisted of the largest fillets, was the lowest in

price, averaging $2.62 per pound.

For imported basa and tra frozen catfish fillets from Vietnam, products 3 and 4 respectively were

the largest-quantity products and the quarterly prices averaged $*** and $*** per pound, respectively,

during 2003-08. The imported product 2, which was the third-largest-quantity product averaged $*** per

pound during the period, while the imported product 1, which consisted of the smallest fillets and was the

lowest-quantity product, averaged $*** per pound. The sales distribution of different sizes of frozen basa

and tra fillets imported from Vietnam was based on somewhat limited price data relative to that reported

by U.S. processors. Domestic interested parties asserted that the subject imports from Vietnam are

heavily concentrated in the smaller and medium sizes of fillets.38

Price trends and price comparisons of quarterly weighted-average selling prices and the quarterly

shipment quantities are based on the reported net U.S. f.o.b. selling price data. The price data are shown

by each of the four specified products in tables V-1 through V-4 and figures V-4 through V-7,

respectively.
V-12

Table V-1

Certain frozen fish fillets: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

subject imported certain frozen fish fillets for product 11

 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January

2003-December 2008

Period of

shipment

United States Vietnam

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(1,000 pounds)

No. of

firms

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(1,000

pounds)

No. of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $2.36 938 11 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.45 787 11 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.45 734 11 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.45 655 11 *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.69 739 11 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.72 664 11 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.69 759 11 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.78 592 11 *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.82 739 12 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.83 673 12 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.83 814 12 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.85 588 12 *** *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.79 1,094 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.98 1,202 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.07 1,015 13 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.16 694 13 *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.16 661 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.03 691 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.72 821 13 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.60 643 13 *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.70 897 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.93 664 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.95 689 12 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.01 499 11 *** *** *** ***

Totals (2

) 18,252 14 (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 1 consists of 2 to 3 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

 2

 Not applicable.

Note.–Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise include frozen

basa and tra fillets.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-13

Table V-2

Certain frozen fish fillets: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

subject imported certain frozen fish fillets for product 21

 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January

2003-December 2008

Period of

shipment

United States Vietnam

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(1,000 pounds)

No. of

firms

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(1,000

pounds)

No. of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $2.42 5,276 11 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.51 4,791 11 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.44 5,192 11 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.47 3,666 11 *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.68 4,914 11 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.77 4,391 11 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.71 5,007 11 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.74 3,595 11 *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.82 4,820 12 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.83 4,753 12 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.82 5,276 12 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.79 4,218 12 *** *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.82 5,413 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.02 4,405 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.10 4,939 13 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.07 3,784 13 *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.15 4,239 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.10 4,222 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.90 4,692 13 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.76 3,838 13 *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.78 5,123 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.94 4,614 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.03 3,977 12 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.12 2,438 11 *** *** *** ***

Totals (2

) 107,583 14 (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 2 consists of over 3 ounce to 5 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

 2

 Not applicable.

Note.–Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise include frozen

basa and tra fillets.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-14

Table V-3

Certain frozen fish fillets: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

subject imported certain frozen fish fillets for product 31

 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January

2003-December 2008

Period of

shipment

United States Vietnam

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(1,000 pounds)

No. of

firms

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(1,000

pounds)

No. of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $2.41 4,095 11 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.54 3,956 11 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.47 4,284 11 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.47 3,158 11 *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.64 4,061 11 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.76 3,912 11 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.70 4,436 11 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.62 3,760 11 *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.72 5,101 12 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.81 4,554 12 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.79 4,516 12 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.78 3,308 12 *** *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.81 4,714 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.97 4,230 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.10 4,649 13 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.12 3,227 13 *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.13 3,760 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 3.15 3,350 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.91 3,801 13 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.76 3,228 13 *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.75 4,187 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.94 3,371 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.01 2,591 12 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.06 1,649 11 *** *** *** ***

Totals (2

) 91,898 14 (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 3 consists of over 5 ounce to 7 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

 2

 Not applicable.

Note.–Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise include frozen

basa and tra fillets.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-15

Table V-4

Certain frozen fish fillets: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of domestic and

subject imported certain frozen fish fillets for product 41

 and margins of underselling, by quarters, January

2003-December 2008

Period of

shipment

United States Vietnam

Price

(per

pound)

Quantity

(1,000 pounds)

No. of

firms

Price

(per pound)

Quantity

(1,000

pounds)

No. of

firms

Margin

(percent)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $2.29 2,238 11 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.35 1,952 10 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.34 2,050 11 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.37 1,607 11 *** *** *** ***

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.55 2,085 11 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.65 1,745 11 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.58 1,734 11 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.57 1,412 11 *** *** *** ***

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.52 2,553 12 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.53 2,324 12 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.48 2,461 12 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.52 1,920 12 *** *** *** ***

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.68 1,643 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.91 1,219 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.04 1,383 13 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 3.09 1,052 13 *** *** *** ***

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.11 1,310 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.63 1,698 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 2.77 1,412 13 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.71 1,108 13 *** *** *** ***

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.63 1,637 13 *** *** *** ***

 Apr.-June 2.85 1,312 13 *** *** *** ***

 July-Sept. 3.00 1,019 12 *** *** *** ***

 Oct.-Dec. 2.90 900 11 *** *** *** ***

Totals (2

) 39,774 14 (2) *** *** (2)

 1 Product 4 consists of over 7 ounce to 9 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

 2

 Not applicable.

Note.–Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise include frozen

basa and tra fillets.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-16

Figure V-4

Certain frozen fish fillets: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of

domestic and subject imported certain frozen fish fillets for product 1,1

 by quarters, January 2003-

December 2008

 1 Product 1 consists of 2 to 3 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

Note.–Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise,

which include frozen basa and tra fillets, were deleted due to confidentiality.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-17

Figure V-5

Certain frozen fish fillets: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of

domestic and subject imported certain frozen fish fillets for product 2,1

 by quarters, January 2003-

December 2008

 1 Product 2 consists of over 3 ounce to 5 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

Note.–Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise, which

include frozen basa and tra fillets, were deleted due to confidentiality.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-18

Figure V-6

Certain frozen fish fillets: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of

domestic and subject imported certain frozen fish fillets for product 3,1

 by quarters, January 2003-

December 2008

 1 Product 3 consists of over 5 ounce to 7 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

Note.–Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise,

which include frozen basa and tra fillets, were deleted due to confidentiality.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
V-19

Figure V-7

Certain frozen fish fillets: Net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling prices and quantities of

domestic and subject imported certain frozen fish fillets for product 4,1

 by quarters, January 2003-

December 2008

 1 Product 4 consists of over 7 ounce to 9 ounce frozen fillets, not breaded or marinated, in 15 lb. to 22 lb. boxes.

Note.–Data for the domestic product include frozen catfish fillets. Data for the subject Vietnamese merchandise,

which include frozen basa and tra fillets, were deleted due to confidentiality.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.
 39 Weighted-average prices and quantities of domestic frozen catfish fillet products 1-4 were available for every

quarter during 2003-08, whereas the price data for imported frozen basa and tra fillet products 1-4 from Vietnam

were not reported for every quarter during this period. The reported price data for imported frozen basa and tra fillet

product 1 from Vietnam were more limited than for products 2-4, leading to less complete price trends; therefore,

trends in the price data for imported product 1 are discussed more briefly than those for imported products 2-4.

 40 U.S. apparent consumption of certain frozen fish fillets decreased by approximately 8.2 percent in 2007 from

the previous year, and a 2006 inventory buildup by U.S. processors of their domestic frozen catfish fillets reportedly

had to be moved in 2007 at tremendous write downs. Hearing transcript, p. 119-120 (Walker)). 

 41 Quarterly prices of the imported frozen basa and tra fillet product 1 increased by *** percent during OctoberDecember 2003 through October-December 2008. However, quarterly prices of the imported product 1 decreased

by *** percent from its period-high during April-June 2006 through October-December 2008.

V-20

Price Trends

Quarterly prices of the domestic frozen catfish fillet products 1-4 fluctuated but generally

increased during January 2003-December 2008, while quarterly prices of the imported frozen basa and tra

fillet products 1-4 from Vietnam also fluctuated and increased over the incomplete periods reported, but

generally decreased from their period-high prices, the latter during various quarters of 2006, through

October-December 2008.39 Quarterly prices of the domestic frozen catfish fillet products 1-4 generally

decreased during 2007,40 the only year in which prices of all four domestic products generally decreased,

but then typically increased during 2008. On the other hand, quarterly prices of the imported basa and tra

frozen fillet products 1-4 generally decreased throughout 2007-08. Quarterly shipment quantities of the

four domestic products showed more pronounced fluctuation than prices of the domestic products, but

generally decreased during January 2003-December 2008, while shipment quantities of the four imported

frozen basa and tra fillet products from Vietnam fluctuated but generally increased for the incomplete

periods reported. The trends in reported prices and quantities of the subject imported products from

Vietnam may be somewhat skewed because only limited price data were reported in the early periods

compared to larger volume price data reported in more recent periods. A summary of price trends and

high/low prices for the domestic and imported subject products from Vietnam are shown in table V-5.

Quarterly prices of the four domestic frozen catfish fillet products increased similarly during

2003-08, with prices increasing over the full period by 27.5 percent for product 1, 28.9 percent for 

product 2, 27.0 percent for product 3, and 26.6 percent for product 4. Quarterly prices of the domestic

frozen catfish fillet products 1-4 decreased during 2007, by 17.7 percent for product 1, 12.4 percent for

product 2, 11.8 percent for product 3, and 12.9 percent from product 4. On the other hand, quarterly

prices of the domestic frozen catfish fillet products 1-4 increased during 2008, by 11.5 percent for product

1, 12.2 percent for product 2, 11.3 percent for product 3, and 10.3 percent for product 4.

Quarterly prices of the imported frozen basa and tra fillet products 2-4 increased from the initial

periods reported, by *** percent during October-December 2003 through October-December 2008 for

product 2, and, during April-June 2003 through October-December 2008, by *** percent for product 3

and *** percent for product 4.41 On the other hand, quarterly prices of the subject imported products 2-4

generally decreased from their period highs; prices of product 2 decreased by *** percent during JulySeptember 2006 through October-December 2008, prices of product 3 decreased by *** percent during

April-June 2006 through October-December 2008, and prices of product 4 decreased by *** percent

during July-September 2006 through October-December 2008.
 42 Quarterly shipment quantities of domestic product 1 decreased by 46.8 percent during January-March 2003

through October-December 2008, but product 1 shipment quantities decreased by 4.4 percent and 23.8 percent based

on first-quarter comparisons (January-March 2003 through January-March 2008) and fourth-quarter comparisons

(October-December 2003 through October-December 2008), respectively. Quarterly shipment quantities of

domestic product 2 decreased by 53.8 percent during January-March 2003 through October-December 2008, but

product 2 shipment quantities decreased by 2.9 percent and 33.5 percent based on first-quarter and fourth-quarter

comparisons, respectively. Quarterly shipment quantities of domestic product 3 decreased by 59.7 percent during

January-March 2003 through October-December 2008, but product 3 shipment quantities increased by 2.2 percent

(continued...)

V-21

Table V-5

Certain frozen fish fillets: Summary of trends in quarterly weighted-average net f.o.b. selling

prices for domestic and subject imported certain frozen fish fillet products 1-4, by country of

origin, January 2003-December 2008 

Country

Number of

quarters

reported

Highest price in

the period (per

pound)

Lowest price in

the period (per

pound)

Percentage

change in price

in the period1

Product 1 (2-3 ounce frozen fillets)

United States 24 $3.16 $2.36 27.5 

Vietnam 12 *** *** ***2

Product 2 (over 3 ounce to 5 ounce frozen fillets)

United States 24 3.15 2.42 28.9 

Vietnam 20 *** *** ***3

Product 3 (over 5 ounce to 7 ounce frozen fillets)

United States 24 3.15 2.41 27.0 

Vietnam 21 *** *** ***4

Product 4 (over 7 ounce to 9 ounce frozen fillets)

United States 24 3.11 2.29 26.6 

Vietnam 21 *** *** ***5

 1 Price change is from the first quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2008 if available. If data for these

quarters are not available, it is the change from the first quarter to the last quarter for which the data are available;

this price change does not necessarily show the change between the highest and lowest prices, unless such prices

were in the first and last quarters for which data are available.

 2

 Price change is based on data for the fourth quarter of 2003 and for the fourth quarter of 2008.

 3

 Price change is from the fourth quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2008.

 4

 Price change is from the second quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2008.

 5

 Price change is from the second quarter of 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2008.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

 Total quarterly shipment quantities reported by the U.S. processors of the domestic frozen catfish

fillet products 1-4 fluctuated but decreased during January 2003-December 2008. Measuring the trend in

shipment quantities for the entire period by the change from January-March 2003 through OctoberDecember 2008 may overstate the decreases. The reported quarterly shipment quantities show that during

2003-08, at least partially as a result of seasonal demand factors, the first quarter of each year generally

represented the largest quarterly quantity for the year, while the fourth quarter of each year consistently

represented the lowest quarterly quantity for each year.42 Declining shipment trends were
 42 (...continued)

and decreased by 47.8 percent based on first-quarter and fourth-quarter comparisons, respectively. Quarterly

shipment quantities of domestic product 4 decreased by 59.8 percent during January-March 2003 through OctoberDecember 2008, but product 4 shipment quantities decreased by 26.9 percent and 44.0 percent based on first-quarter

and fourth-quarter comparisons, respectively.

 43 Quarterly shipment quantities of the imported product 1 from Vietnam increased by *** percent during

October-December 2003 (the earliest period for which price data were reported for this product) through OctoberDecember 2008; but product 1 shipment quantities increased by *** percent based on first quarter comparisons

(January-March 2007 (earliest reported period for this product) through January-March 2008. Quarterly shipment

quantities of the imported product 2 from Vietnam increased by *** percent during October-December 2003 (earliest

reported period for this product) through October-December 2008, but product 2 shipment quantities increased by

*** percent based on first-quarter comparisons (January-March 2004 (earliest reported period for this product)

through January-March 2008). Quarterly shipment quantities of the imported product 3 from Vietnam increased by

*** percent during April-June 2003 (earliest reported period for this product) through October-December 2008, but

product 3 shipment quantities increased by *** and *** percent based on first-quarter comparisons (January-March

2004 (earliest reported first-quarter period for this product) through January-March 2008) and fourth-quarter

comparisons (October-December 2003 through October-December 2008), respectively. Quarterly shipment

quantities of the imported product 4 from Vietnam increased by *** percent during April-June 2003 (earliest

reported period for this product) through October-December 2008, but product 4 shipment quantities increased by

*** percent and *** percent based on first-quarter comparisons (January-March 2004 (earliest reported first-quarter

period for this product) through January-March 2008) and fourth-quarter comparisons (October-December 2003-

October-December 2008), respectively.

 44 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section IV-9b.

V-22

evident whether comparing shipment quantities in the first and last quarter of the period 2003-08, or

comparing shipments in the first quarters of 2003 and 2008 or the last quarters of 2003 and 2008.

Total quarterly shipment quantities reported by the U.S. importers of the frozen basa and tra fillet

products 1-4 from Vietnam fluctuated but increased during the various periods reported for each such

product. Part of this increase in quarterly quantities resulted because of the limited reported price data of

the subject imported products during the early part of 2003-08 and more complete data in the latter part of

this period. In addition, because the reported price data for the imported products was less complete than

that of the domestic producers, seasonal factors were less prominent in the shipment quantities of the

subject imported products than the domestic products.43

Price Comparisons

A total of 74 quarterly net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling price comparisons were possible

between the domestic frozen catfish fillet products 1-4 and the imported frozen basa and tra fillet products

from Vietnam during January 2003-December 2008. All 74 selling price comparisons showed that the

imported products were priced less than the domestic products. The selling price comparisons are shown

by period and by product in table V-6.

U.S. purchasers were requested in their purchaser questionnaire responses to comment whether

domestic frozen fish fillets were higher in price than imported frozen basa and tra fillets from Vietnam.44

Twelve of the 14 responding purchasers reported that prices of domestic frozen catfish fillets were higher,

whereas 2 reported that prices of the domestic products were lower. One of the latter two purchasers,

***, reported that prices of imported frozen basa fillets from Vietnam were higher than prices of
 45 *** also reported that most Vietnamese production initially was basa, which was raised in floating cages in the

vast Mekong River Delta. However, in recent years, almost all Vietnamese fish farmers have switched to tra, which

now accounts for more than *** percent of Vietnam’s combined production and a reported *** percent of exports.

*** purchaser questionnaire response, section I-7.

 46 U.S. purchaser questionnaire responses, section III-31.

 47 The quarterly data were developed from the monthly data reported by USDA, NASS.

V-23

Table V-6

Certain frozen fish fillets: Number of quarterly net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling price

comparisons between U.S. frozen catfish fillets and imported frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam, by year and by product, import quantities, and ranges of underselling, January 2003-

December 2008

* * * * * * 

domestic frozen catfish fillets, but prices of imported frozen tra fillets from Vietnam were lower

than prices of the domestic products.45

U.S. purchasers were also requested to indicate how frequently (always, usually, sometimes, or

never) they purchased certain frozen fish fillets that were the lowest in price.46 Of the 25 purchasers that 

responded, 7 reported that they usually purchase certain frozen fish fillets that were lowest in price, 11

reported that they sometimes do so, and 7 reported that they never do so.

Table V-7 presents the number, import quantity, and ranges of underselling from the original

investigation. The number of price comparisons from the original investigation were based on monthly

price data.

Table V-7

Certain frozen fish fillets: Number of monthly net weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. selling price

comparisons between U.S. frozen catfish fillets and imported frozen basa and tra fillets from

Vietnam, by year and by product, import quantities, and ranges of underselling, January 2000-

March 2003

* * * * * * *

Unit Sales Values and Quantities of U.S. Frozen and Fresh Catfish Fillets

Although U.S. processors produce primarily frozen catfish fillets, they also produce fresh catfish

fillets. Data published by the USDA show U.S. processors’ unit sales values and quantities of their

frozen and fresh catfish fillets for all fillet sizes combined, including regular, shank and strip fillets, but

excluding breaded products. The quarterly weighted-average unit sales values and quantities for the U.S.

processors’ frozen and fresh catfish fillets during 2003-08 are shown in table V-8 and figure V-8.47
V-24

Table V-8

U.S. frozen and fresh catfish fillets: Gross weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. unit sales values and quantities of

the domestic frozen and fresh catfish fillets, by quarters, January 2003-December 2008

Period of

shipment

Frozen catfish fillets Fresh catfish fillets

Unit value

(per pound)

Quantity

(1,000 pounds)

Unit value

(per pound)

Quantity

(1,000 pounds)

2003:

 Jan.-Mar. $2.40 34,280 $2.44 17,235

 Apr.-June 2.43 29,856 2.50 17,801

 July-Sept. 2.38 31,371 2.48 17,305

 Oct.-Dec. 2.41 29,193 2.51 15,979

2004:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.57 32,647 2.64 19,234

 Apr.-June 2.68 29,212 2.74 17,075

 July-Sept. 2.63 30,379 2.73 15,907

 Oct.-Dec. 2.61 29,562 2.77 13,490

2005:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.67 31,911 2.80 16,684

 Apr.-June 2.66 31,664 2.86 15,240

 July-Sept. 2.69 30,492 2.83 14,560

 Oct.-Dec. 2.66 29,616 2.84 13,572

2006:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.70 34,582 2.87 16,445

 Apr.-June 2.91 28,666 3.06 14,172

 July-Sept. 3.02 28,855 3.19 12,762

 Oct.-Dec. 3.05 25,800 3.24 11,462

2007:

 Jan.-Mar. 3.09 27,250 3.26 13,372

 Apr.-June 3.02 25,172 3.27 11,989

 July-Sept. 2.84 26,483 3.10 12,009

 Oct.-Dec. 2.73 24,788 2.94 11,358

2008:

 Jan.-Mar. 2.71 30,228 2.91 14,234

 Apr.-June 2.89 25,592 3.07 12,906

 July-Sept. 2.99 25,322 3.30 11,249

 Oct.-Dec. 3.02 21,640 3.31 9,881

Totals (1

) 694,561 (

1

) 345,921

 1 Not applicable.

Source: Catfish Processing, Monthly Survey, USDA, NASS, various issues.
V-25

Figure V-8

U.S. frozen and fresh catfish fillets: Gross weighted-average U.S. f.o.b. unit sales values and quantities of

the domestic frozen and fresh catfish fillets, by quarters, January 2003-December 2008

Source: Catfish Processing, Monthly Survey, USDA, NASS, various issues.
 48 The higher price of the fresh product compared to the frozen product may be due at least partially to the

differences in shelf life. The fresh product has a shelf life of days compared to months for the frozen product, such

that more of the fresh product is likely discarded than the frozen product. This factor and more careful handling of

the fresh product likely raises costs of the fresh product compared to the frozen product. In addition, domestic

interested parties asserted that the increasing prices of the domestic fresh catfish fillets relative to prices the domestic

frozen catfish fillets was due to less competition of the fresh product with the imported products. Hearing transcript,

p. 122 (Walker).

 49 The quarterly unit values of both domestic frozen and fresh catfish fillets generally increased during 2003-08,

and the correlation coefficient between the quarterly unit values of the frozen and fresh catfish fillets was 0.98

during this period.

V-26

The U.S. processors sell about twice the quantity of frozen catfish fillets compared to fresh

catfish fillets, but fresh catfish fillets are sold at higher prices than frozen catfish fillets.48 As seen in

table V-8 and figure V-8, the U.S. processors produced a total of approximately 694.6 million pounds of

frozen catfish fillets during 2003-08, and 345.9 million pounds of fresh catfish fillets during this period. 

At the same time, based on annual data, the unit value of fresh catfish fillets increased vis-a-vis frozen

catfish fillets, from $0.07 per pound or 2.9 percent higher in 2003 to $0.24 per pound or 8.3 percent

higher in 2008.49 Although not shown, this latter differential remained about the same during JanuaryFebruary 2009, as unit values of the domestic frozen and fresh catfish fillets decreased somewhat at the

beginning of 2009.
A-1

APPENDIX A

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES AND 

STATEMENT ON ADEQUACY

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 1, 2008 / Notices 37411 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests to 

extend that five-day deadline based upon a showing 

of good cause. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Initiation of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

automatically initiating a five-year 

review (‘‘Sunset Review’’) of the 

antidumping and countervailing duty 

orders listed below. The International 

Trade Commission (‘‘the Commission’’) 

is publishing concurrently with this 

notice its notice of Institution of Fiveyear Review which covers the same 

orders. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Department official identified in the 

Initiation of Review section below at 

AD/CVD Operations, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution 

Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20230. For 

information from the Commission 

contact Mary Messer, Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission at (202) 205–3193. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department’s procedures for the 

conduct of Sunset Reviews are set forth 

in its Procedures for Conducting Fiveyear (‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Orders, 63 FR 13516 (March 20, 1998) 

and 70 FR 62061 (October 28, 2005). 

Guidance on methodological or 

analytical issues relevant to the 

Department’s conduct of Sunset 

Reviews is set forth in the Department’s 

Policy Bulletin 98.3 - Policies Regarding 

the Conduct of Five-year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Reviews of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Orders: Policy 

Bulletin, 63 FR 18871 (April 16, 1998). 

Initiation of Review 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.218(c), we are initiating the Sunset 

Review of the following antidumping 

and countervailing duty orders: 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

A–552–801 ......................... 731–TA–1012 Vietnam Frozen Fish Fillets Alex Villanueva (202) 482–3208 

A–570–848 ......................... 731–TA–752 

(Second Review) 

PRC Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat Lyn Johnson (202) 482–5287 

C–580–851 ........................ 701–TA–431 Korea Dynamic Random Access 

Memory Semiconductors 

Nancy Decker (202) 482–0196 

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

pertinent statute and Department’s 

regulations, the Department schedule 

for Sunset Reviews, a listing of past 

revocations and continuations, and 

current service lists, available to the 

public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet Web site at the following 

address: 

≥http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’ All 

submissions in these Sunset Reviews 

must be filed in accordance with the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

format, translation, service, and 

certification of documents. These rules 

can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103 (c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation. 

Because deadlines in Sunset Reviews 

can be very short, we urge interested 

parties to apply for access to proprietary 

information under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The Department’s regulations on 

submission of proprietary information 

and eligibility to receive access to 

business proprietary information under 

APO can be found at 19 CFR 351.304–

306. 

Information Required from Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties defined in 

section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) wishing 

to participate in a Sunset Review must 

respond not later than 15 days after the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation by 

filing a notice of intent to participate. 

The required contents of the notice of 

intent to participate are set forth at 19 

CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In accordance 

with the Department’s regulations, if we 

do not receive a notice of intent to 

participate from at least one domestic 

interested party by the 15-day deadline, 

the Department will automatically 

revoke the order without further review. 

See 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

If we receive an order–specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order–specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218 

(c). 

Dated: June 18, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–14910 Filed 6–30–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 1, 2008 / Notices 37487 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

OMB number is 3117–0016/USITC No. 08–5–184, 

expiration date July 31, 2008. Public reporting 

burden for the request is estimated to average 15 

hours per response. Please send comments 

regarding the accuracy of this burden estimate to 

the Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20436. 

continue the collection of information 

under 30 CFR part 780, Surface Mining 

Permit Applications—Minimum 

Requirements for Reclamation and 

Operation Plans. This information 

collection activity was previously 

approved by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), and assigned 

clearance number 1029–0036. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed 

information collection must be received 

by September 2, 2008, to be assured of 

consideration. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

John A. Trelease, Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

1951 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 

202–SIB, Washington, DC 20240. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically to jtrelease@osmre.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

receive a copy of the information 

collection request contact John Trelease, 

at (202) 208–2783. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB 

regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which 

implement provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13), 

require that interested members of the 

public and affected agencies have an 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection and recordkeeping activities 

[see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)]. This notice 

identifies an information collection that 

OSM will be submitting to OMB for 

approval. The collection is contained in 

30 CFR part 780, Surface Mining Permit 

Applications Minimum Requirements 

for Reclamation and Operation Plans. 

OSM will request a 3-year term of 

approval for this information collection 

activity. Applicants must complete and 

submit the information for this part in 

order to receive a permit for surface coal 

mining. 

Comments are invited on: (1) The 

need for the collection of information 

for the performance of the functions of 

the agency; (2) the accuracy of the 

agency’s burden estimates; (3) ways to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (4) 

ways to minimize the information 

collection burden on respondents, such 

as use of automated means of collection 

of the information. A summary of the 

public comments will accompany 

OSM’s submission of the information 

collection requests to OMB. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment, including your 

personal identifying information, may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

The following information is provided 

for the information collection: (1) Title 

of the information collection; (2) OMB 

control number; (3) summary of the 

information collection activity; and (4) 

frequency of collection, description of 

the respondents, estimated total annual 

responses, and the total annual 

reporting and recordkeeping burden for 

the collection of information. 

Title: 30 CFR Part 780—Surface 

Mining Permit Applications—Minimum 

Requirements for Reclamation and 

Operation Plan. 

OMB Control Number: 1029–0036. 

Summary: Sections 507(b), 508(a), 

510(b), 515(b) and (d), and 522 of Public 

Law 95–87 require applicants to submit 

operations and reclamation plans for 

coal mining activities. Information 

collection is needed to determine 

whether the plans will achieve the 

reclamation and environmental 

protections pursuant to the Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act. 

Without this information, Federal and 

State regulatory authorities cannot 

review and approve permit application 

requests. 

Bureau Form Number: None. 

Frequency of Collection: Once. 

Description of Respondents: 

Applicants for surface coal mine 

permits on Federal lands, and State 

Regulatory Authorities. Total Annual 

Responses: 225 applicants and 221 State 

responses. 

Total Annual Burden Hours for 

Applicants: 131,378. 

Total Annual Burden Hours for 

States: 76,115. 

Total Annual Burden for All 

Respondents: 207,853. 

Total Annual Burden Costs for All 

Respondents: $1,992,392. 

Dated: June 23, 2008. 

John R. Craynon, 

Chief, Division of Regulatory Support. 

[FR Doc. E8–14757 Filed 6–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1012 (Review)] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From 

Vietnam 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on certain frozen fish fillets from 

Vietnam. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen fish fillets from Vietnam would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury. Pursuant 

to section 751(c)(2) of the Act, interested 

parties are requested to respond to this 

notice by submitting the information 

specified below to the Commission; 1 to 

be assured of consideration, the 

deadline for responses is August 20, 

2008. Comments on the adequacy of 

responses may be filed with the 

Commission by September 15, 2008. For 

further information concerning the 

conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background. On August 12, 2003, the 

Department of Commerce issued an 

antidumping duty order on imports of 

certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam 

(68 FR 47909). The Commission is 

conducting a review to determine 

whether revocation of the order would 

be likely to lead to continuation or 

recurrence of material injury to the 

domestic industry within a reasonably 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
37488 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 1, 2008 / Notices 

2The Commission, nevertheless, took into 

account the role of catfish farmers as a condition 

of competition in the industry because the record 

of the original investigation demonstrated the 

importance of catfish farmers to catfish processors 

and vice versa. 

foreseeable time. It will assess the 

adequacy of interested party responses 

to this notice of institution to determine 

whether to conduct a full review or an 

expedited review. The Commission’s 

determination in any expedited review 

will be based on the facts available, 

which may include information 

provided in response to this notice. 

Definitions. The following definitions 

apply to this review: 

(1) Subject Merchandise is the class or 

kind of merchandise that is within the 

scope of the five-year review, as defined 

by the Department of Commerce. 

(2) The Subject Country in this review 

is Vietnam. 

(3) 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. In its original 

determination, the Commission defined 

the Domestic Like Product as frozen 

catfish fillets, whether or not breaded or 

marinated. 

(4) 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 its original determination, 

the Commission defined the Domestic 

Industry as processing operations 

producing frozen catfish fillets (whether 

or not breaded or marinated), not 

including catfish farming operations.2

(5) The Order Date is the date that the 

antidumping duty order under review 

became effective. In this review, the 

Order Date is August 12, 2003. 

(6) An Importer is any person or firm 

engaged, either directly or through a 

parent company or subsidiary, in 

importing the Subject Merchandise into 

the United States from a foreign 

manufacturer or through its selling 

agent. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list. Persons, including 

industrial users of the Subject 

Merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in the review as parties must 

file an entry of appearance with the 

Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11(b)(4) of the 

Commission’s rules, no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. The Secretary will 

maintain a public service list containing 

the names and addresses of all persons, 

or their representatives, who are parties 

to the review. 

Former Commission employees who 

are seeking to appear in Commission 

five-year reviews are advised that they 

may appear in a review even if they 

participated personally and 

substantially in the corresponding 

underlying original investigation. The 

Commission’s designated agency ethics 

official recently has advised that a fiveyear review is no longer considered the 

‘‘same particular matter’’ as the 

corresponding underlying original 

investigation for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 

207, the post employment statute for 

Federal employees, and Commission 

rule 201.15(b) (19 CFR 201.15(b)), 73 

FR. 24609 (May 5, 2008). This advice 

was developed in consultation with the 

Office of Government Ethics. 

Consequently, former employees are no 

longer required to seek Commission 

approval to appear in a review under 

Commission rule 19 CFR 201.15, even if 

the corresponding underlying original 

investigation was pending when they 

were Commission employees. For 

further ethics advice on this matter, 

contact Carol McCue Verratti, Deputy 

Agency Ethics Official, at 202–205–

3088. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and APO service list. Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

submitted in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made no later than 21 

days after publication of this notice in 

the Federal Register. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A 

separate service list will be maintained 

by the Secretary for those parties 

authorized to receive BPI under the 

APO. 

Certification. Pursuant to section 

207.3 of the Commission’s rules, any 

person submitting information to the 

Commission in connection with this 

review must certify that the information 

is accurate and complete to the best of 

the submitter’s knowledge. In making 

the certification, the submitter will be 

deemed to consent, unless otherwise 

specified, for the Commission, its 

employees, and contract personnel to 

use the information provided in any 

other reviews or investigations of the 

same or comparable products which the 

Commission conducts under Title VII of 

the Act, or in internal audits and 

investigations relating to the programs 

and operations of the Commission 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3. 

Written submissions. Pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s 

rules, each interested party response to 

this notice must provide the information 

specified below. The deadline for filing 

such responses is August 20, 2008. 

Pursuant to section 207.62(b) of the 

Commission’s rules, eligible parties (as 

specified in Commission rule 

207.62(b)(1)) may also file comments 

concerning the adequacy of responses to 

the notice of institution and whether the 

Commission should conduct an 

expedited or full review. The deadline 

for filing such comments is September 

15, 2008. All written submissions must 

conform with the provisions of sections 

201.8 and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules and any submissions that contain 

BPI must also conform with the 

requirements of sections 201.6 and 

207.7 of the Commission’s rules. The 

Commission’s rules do not authorize 

filing of submissions with the Secretary 

by facsimile or electronic means, except 

to the extent permitted by section 201.8 

of the Commission’s rules, as amended, 

67 Fed. Reg. 68036 (November 8, 2002). 

Also, in accordance with sections 

201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission’s 

rules, each document filed by a party to 

the review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or APO service list as 

appropriate), and a certificate of service 

must accompany the document (if you 

are not a party to the review you do not 

need to serve your response). 

Inability to provide requested 

information. Pursuant to section 

207.61(c) of the Commission’s rules, any 

interested party that cannot furnish the 

information requested by this notice in 

the requested form and manner shall 

notify the Commission at the earliest 

possible time, provide a full explanation 

of why it cannot provide the requested 

information, and indicate alternative 

forms in which it can provide 

equivalent information. If an interested 

party does not provide this notification 

(or the Commission finds the 

explanation provided in the notification 

inadequate) and fails to provide a 

complete response to this notice, the 

Commission may take an adverse 

inference against the party pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act in making its 

determination in the review. 

Information To Be Provided In 

Response to This Notice of Institution: 

As used below, the term ‘‘firm’’ includes 

any related firms. 

(1) The name and address of your firm 

or entity (including World Wide Web 

address if available) and name, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 127 / Tuesday, July 1, 2008 / Notices 37489 

1No response to this request for information is 

required if a currently valid Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) number is not displayed; the 

Continued 

telephone number, fax number, and Email address of the certifying official. 

(2) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is a U.S. producer of 

the Domestic Like Product, a U.S. union 

or worker group, a U.S. importer of the 

Subject Merchandise, a foreign producer 

or exporter of the Subject Merchandise, 

a U.S. or foreign trade or business 

association, or another interested party 

(including an explanation). If you are a 

union/worker group or trade/business 

association, identify the firms in which 

your workers are employed or which are 

members of your association. 

(3) A statement indicating whether 

your firm/entity is willing to participate 

in this review by providing information 

requested by the Commission. 

(4) A statement of the likely effects of 

the revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on the Domestic Industry in 

general and/or your firm/entity 

specifically. In your response, please 

discuss the various factors specified in 

section 752(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1675a(a)) including the likely volume of 

subject imports, likely price effects of 

subject imports, and likely impact of 

imports of Subject Merchandise on the 

Domestic Industry. 

(5) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. producers of the 

Domestic Like Product. Identify any 

known related parties and the nature of 

the relationship as defined in section 

771(4)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 

1677(4)(B)). 

(6) A list of all known and currently 

operating U.S. importers of the Subject 

Merchandise and producers of the 

Subject Merchandise in the Subject 

Country that currently export or have 

exported Subject Merchandise to the 

United States or other countries since 

the Order Date. 

(7) If you are a U.S. producer of the 

Domestic Like Product, provide the 

following information on your firm’s 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars, f.o.b. plant). If you are a union/ 

worker group or trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms in 

which your workers are employed/ 

which are members of your association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total U.S. production of the Domestic 

Like Product accounted for by your 

firm’s(s’) production; 

(b) The quantity and value of U.S. 

commercial shipments of the Domestic 

Like Product produced in your U.S. 

plant(s); and 

(c) The quantity and value of U.S. 

internal consumption/company 

transfers of the Domestic Like Product 

produced in your U.S. plant(s). 

(8) If you are a U.S. importer or a 

trade/business association of U.S. 

importers of the Subject Merchandise 

from the Subject Country, provide the 

following information on your firm’s(s’) 

operations on that product during 

calendar year 2007 (report quantity data 

in pounds and value data in U.S. 

dollars). If you are a trade/business 

association, provide the information, on 

an aggregate basis, for the firms which 

are members of your association. 

(a) The quantity and value (landed, 

duty-paid but not including 

antidumping duties) of U.S. imports 

and, if known, an estimate of the 

percentage of total U.S. imports of 

Subject Merchandise from the Subject 

Country accounted for by your firm’s(s’) 

imports; 

(b) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. commercial shipments of Subject 

Merchandise imported from the Subject 

Country; and 

(c) The quantity and value (f.o.b. U.S. 

port, including antidumping duties) of 

U.S. internal consumption/company 

transfers of Subject Merchandise 

imported from the Subject Country. 

(9) If you are a producer, an exporter, 

or a trade/business association of 

producers or exporters of the Subject 

Merchandise in the Subject Country, 

provide the following information on 

your firm’s(s’) operations on that 

product during calendar year 2007 

(report quantity data in pounds and 

value data in U.S. dollars, landed and 

duty-paid at the U.S. port but not 

including antidumping duties). If you 

are a trade/business association, provide 

the information, on an aggregate basis, 

for the firms which are members of your 

association. 

(a) Production (quantity) and, if 

known, an estimate of the percentage of 

total production of Subject Merchandise 

in the Subject Country accounted for by 

your firm’s(s’) production; and 

(b) The quantity and value of your 

firm’s(s’) exports to the United States of 

Subject Merchandise and, if known, an 

estimate of the percentage of total 

exports to the United States of Subject 

Merchandise from the Subject Country 

accounted for by your firm’s(s’) exports. 

(10) Identify significant changes, if 

any, in the supply and demand 

conditions or business cycle for the 

Domestic Like Product that have 

occurred in the United States or in the 

market for the Subject Merchandise in 

the Subject Country since the Order 

Date, and significant changes, if any, 

that are likely to occur within a 

reasonably foreseeable time. Supply 

conditions to consider include 

technology; production methods; 

development efforts; ability to increase 

production (including the shift of 

production facilities used for other 

products and the use, cost, or 

availability of major inputs into 

production); and factors related to the 

ability to shift supply among different 

national markets (including barriers to 

importation in foreign markets or 

changes in market demand abroad). 

Demand conditions to consider include 

end uses and applications; the existence 

and availability of substitute products; 

and the level of competition among the 

Domestic Like Product produced in the 

United States, Subject Merchandise 

produced in the Subject Country, and 

such merchandise from other countries. 

(11)(Optional) A statement of whether 

you agree with the above definitions of 

the Domestic Like Product and Domestic 

Industry; if you disagree with either or 

both of these definitions, please explain 

why and provide alternative definitions. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.61 of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: June 16, 2008. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–14181 Filed 6–30–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–752 (Second 

Review)] 

Crawfish Tail Meat From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Institution of a five-year review 

concerning the antidumping duty order 

on crawfish tail meat from China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it has instituted a review 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act) 

to determine whether revocation of the 

antidumping duty order on crawfish tail 

meat from China would be likely to lead 

to continuation or recurrence of material 

injury. Pursuant to section 751(c)(2) of 

the Act, interested parties are requested 

to respond to this notice by submitting 

the information specified below to the 

Commission; 1 to be assured of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
62318 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 203 / Monday, October 20, 2008 / Notices 

1A record of the Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, and any 

individual Commissioner’s statements will be 

available from the Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

2The Commission has found the responses 

submitted by the Crawfish Processors Alliance to be 

individually adequate. Comments from other 

interested parties will not be accepted (see 19 CFR 

207.62(d)(2)). 

parties to the investigation (as identified 

by either the public or BPI service list), 

and a certificate of service must be 

timely filed. The Secretary will not 

accept a document for filing without a 

certificate of service. 

Parties are also advised to consult 

with the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure, part 201, subparts A 

through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 

207, subpart A (19 CFR part 207) for 

provisions of general applicability 

concerning written submissions to the 

Commission. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 14, 2008 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–24890 Filed 10–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1012 (Review)] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From 

Vietnam 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Commission 

determination to conduct a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on certain frozen fish fillets 

from Vietnam. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice that it will proceed with a full 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(5)) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on certain frozen fish fillets from 

Vietnam would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. A schedule for the review will be 

established and announced at a later 

date. For further information concerning 

the conduct of this review and rules of 

general application, consult the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mary Messer (202–205–3193), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 6, 2008, the Commission 

determined that it should proceed to a 

full review in the subject five-year 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of 

the Act. The Commission found that 

both the domestic and respondent 

interested party group responses to its 

notice of institution (73 FR 37487, July 

1, 2008) were adequate. A record of the 

Commissioners’ votes, the 

Commission’s statement on adequacy, 

and any individual Commissioner’s 

statements will be available from the 

Office of the Secretary and at the 

Commission’s Web site. 

Authority: This review is being conducted 

under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act 

of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to 

section 207.62 of the Commission’s rules. 

By order of the Commission. 

Issued: October 14, 2008. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E8–24894 Filed 10–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–752 (Second 

Review)] 

Crawfish Tail Meat From China 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of an expedited fiveyear review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on crawfish tail meat from 

China. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of an expedited 

review pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 

1675(c)(3)) (the Act) to determine 

whether revocation of the antidumping 

duty order on crawfish tail meat from 

China would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: October 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Olympia DeRosa Hand (202–205–3182), 

Office of Investigations, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 500 E 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20436. 

Hearing-impaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On October 6, 2008, 

the Commission determined that the 

domestic interested party group 

response to its notice of institution (73 

FR 37489, July 1, 2008) of the subject 

five-year review was adequate and that 

the respondent interested party group 

response was inadequate. The 

Commission did not find any other 

circumstances that would warrant 

conducting a full review.1 Accordingly, 

the Commission determined that it 

would conduct an expedited review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(3) of the Act. 

Staff report.—A staff report 

containing information concerning the 

subject matter of the review will be 

placed in the nonpublic record on 

October 30, 2008, and made available to 

persons on the Administrative 

Protective Order service list for this 

review. A public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 

207.62(d)(4) of the Commission’s rules. 

Written submissions.—As provided in 

section 207.62(d) of the Commission’s 

rules, interested parties that are parties 

to the review and that have provided 

individually adequate responses to the 

notice of institution,2 and any party 

other than an interested party to the 

review, may file written comments with 

the Secretary on what determination the 

Commission should reach in the review. 

Comments are due on or before 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

2616 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Notices 

• University of California-Davis, 

Shields Library, Documents 

Department, 100 NW Quad University 

of California, Davis, CA 95616–5292 

• Merced County Public Library, 1312 

South 7th Street, Los Banos, CA 93635– 

4757 

• Fresno County Public Library 

Government Publications, 2420 

Mariposa Street, Fresno, CA 93721– 

2204 

• Stanislaus County Library, 1500 I 

Street, Modesto, CA 95354 

• Resources Agency Library, 1416 

Ninth Street, Suite 117, Sacramento, CA 

95814–5510 

• California State Library, 914 Capitol 

Mall, Suite E–29, Sacramento, CA 

95814–4802 

• University of California, Berkeley, 

Water Resources Archive, 410 O’Brien 

Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720–1718 

If special accommodation is required, 

please contact Susan Mussett at 209– 

826–9696 or susan.mussett@sldmwa.org 

by January 30, 2009 to enable the 

Authority to secure the needed services. 

Before including your name, address, 

phone number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: December 11, 2008. 

John F. Davis, 

Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region. 

[FR Doc. E9–723 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigation No. 731–TA–1012 (Review)] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From 

Vietnam 

AGENCY: United States International 

Trade Commission. 

ACTION: Scheduling of a full five-year 

review concerning the antidumping 

duty order on certain frozen fish fillets 

from Vietnam. 

SUMMARY: The Commission hereby gives 

notice of the scheduling of a full review 

pursuant to section 751(c)(5) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)(5)) 

(the Act) to determine whether 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on certain frozen fish fillets from 

Vietnam would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury within a reasonably foreseeable 

time. For further information 

concerning the conduct of this review 

and rules of general application, consult 

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure, part 201, subparts A through 

E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, 

subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 

207). 

DATES: Effective Date: January 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Russell Duncan (202–708–4727, 

russell.duncan@usitc.gov), Office of 

Investigations, U.S. International Trade 

Commission, 500 E Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20436. Hearingimpaired persons can obtain 

information on this matter by contacting 

the Commission’s TDD terminal on 202– 

205–1810. Persons with mobility 

impairments who will need special 

assistance in gaining access to the 

Commission should contact the Office 

of the Secretary at 202–205–2000. 

General information concerning the 

Commission may also be obtained by 

accessing its Internet server (http:// 

www.usitc.gov). The public record for 

this review may be viewed on the 

Commission’s electronic docket (EDIS) 

at http://edis.usitc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background.—On October 6, 2008, 

the Commission determined that 

responses to its notice of institution of 

the subject five-year review were such 

that a full review pursuant to section 

751(c)(5) of the Act should proceed (73 

FR 62318, Monday, October 20, 2008). 

A record of the Commissioners’ votes, 

the Commission’s statement on 

adequacy, and any individual 

Commissioner’s statements are available 

from the Office of the Secretary and at 

the Commission’s Web site. 

Participation in the review and public 

service list.—Persons, including 

industrial users of the subject 

merchandise and, if the merchandise is 

sold at the retail level, representative 

consumer organizations, wishing to 

participate in this review as parties 

must file an entry of appearance with 

the Secretary to the Commission, as 

provided in section 201.11 of the 

Commission’s rules, by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. A party that 

filed a notice of appearance following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not file 

an additional notice of appearance. The 

Secretary will maintain a public service 

list containing the names and addresses 

of all persons, or their representatives, 

who are parties to the review. 

Limited disclosure of business 

proprietary information (BPI) under an 

administrative protective order (APO) 

and BPI service list.—Pursuant to 

section 207.7(a) of the Commission’s 

rules, the Secretary will make BPI 

gathered in this review available to 

authorized applicants under the APO 

issued in the review, provided that the 

application is made by 45 days after 

publication of this notice. Authorized 

applicants must represent interested 

parties, as defined by 19 U.S.C. 1677(9), 

who are parties to the review. A party 

granted access to BPI following 

publication of the Commission’s notice 

of institution of the review need not 

reapply for such access. A separate 

service list will be maintained by the 

Secretary for those parties authorized to 

receive BPI under the APO. 

Staff report.—The prehearing staff 

report in the review will be placed in 

the nonpublic record on April 16, 2009, 

and a public version will be issued 

thereafter, pursuant to section 207.64 of 

the Commission’s rules. 

Hearing.—The Commission will hold 

a hearing in connection with the review 

beginning at 9:30 a.m. on May 6, 2009, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Requests to 

appear at the hearing should be filed in 

writing with the Secretary to the 

Commission on or before May 1, 2009. 

A nonparty who has testimony that may 

aid the Commission’s deliberations may 

request permission to present a short 

statement at the hearing. All parties and 

nonparties desiring to appear at the 

hearing and make oral presentations 

should attend a prehearing conference 

to be held at 9:30 a.m. on May 4, 2009, 

at the U.S. International Trade 

Commission Building. Oral testimony 

and written materials to be submitted at 

the public hearing are governed by 

sections 201.6(b)(2), 201.13(f), 207.24, 

and 207.66 of the Commission’s rules. 

Parties must submit any request to 

present a portion of their hearing 

testimony in camera no later than 7 

business days prior to the date of the 

hearing. 

Written submissions.—Each party to 

the review may submit a prehearing 

brief to the Commission. Prehearing 

briefs must conform with the provisions 

of section 207.65 of the Commission’s 

rules; the deadline for filing is April 27, 

2009. Parties may also file written 

testimony in connection with their 

presentation at the hearing, as provided 

in section 207.24 of the Commission’s 

rules, and posthearing briefs, which 

must conform with the provisions of 

section 207.67 of the Commission’s 

rules. The deadline for filing 

posthearing briefs is May 15, 2009; 

witness testimony must be filed no later 

than two days before the hearing. In 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 10 / Thursday, January 15, 2009 / Notices 2617 

addition, any person who has not 

entered an appearance as a party to the 

review may submit a written statement 

of information pertinent to the subject of 

the review on or before May 15, 2009. 

On June 8, 2009, the Commission will 

make available to parties all information 

on which they have not had an 

opportunity to comment. Parties may 

submit final comments on this 

information on or before June 10, 2009, 

but such final comments must not 

contain new factual information and 

must otherwise comply with section 

207.68 of the Commission’s rules. All 

written submissions must conform with 

the provisions of section 201.8 of the 

Commission’s rules; any submissions 

that contain BPI must also conform with 

the requirements of sections 201.6, 

207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission’s 

rules. The Commission’s rules do not 

authorize filing of submissions with the 

Secretary by facsimile or electronic 

means, except to the extent permitted by 

section 201.8 of the Commission’s rules, 

as amended, 67 FR 68036 (November 8, 

2002). Even where electronic filing of a 

document is permitted, certain 

documents must also be filed in paper 

form, as specified in II (C) of the 

Commission’s Handbook on Electronic 

Filing Procedures, 67 FR 68168, 68173 

(November 8, 2002). 

Additional written submissions to the 

Commission, including requests 

pursuant to section 201.12 of the 

Commission’s rules, shall not be 

accepted unless good cause is shown for 

accepting such submissions, or unless 

the submission is pursuant to a specific 

request by a Commissioner or 

Commission staff. 

In accordance with sections 201.16(c) 

and 207.3 of the Commission’s rules, 

each document filed by a party to the 

review must be served on all other 

parties to the review (as identified by 

either the public or BPI service list), and 

a certificate of service must be timely 

filed. The Secretary will not accept a 

document for filing without a certificate 

of service. Authority: This review is 

being conducted under authority of title 

VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice 

is published pursuant to section 207.62 

of the Commission’s rules. 

Issued: January 12, 2009. 

By order of the Commission. 

Marilyn R. Abbott, 

Secretary to the Commission. 

[FR Doc. E9–800 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree 

Under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) 

Notice is hereby given that on January 

9, 2009, a proposed Consent Decree 

(Decree) in United States v. Citibank 

Global Market Holdings, Inc., Civil 

Action No. 09–CV–4002–SAC, was 

lodged with the United States District 

Court for the District of Kansas. 

In this action the United States, on 

behalf of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, sought to recover 

CERCLA response costs from Citibank 

Global Holdings, Inc. and U.S. Steel 

Corporation. The costs were incurred for 

the National Zinc Superfund Site (Site) 

in Cherryvale, Kansas. The Complaint 

alleges that Defendants are liable as 

successors to owners or operators of a 

smelter that was located and operated at 

the Site. The Decree would settle the 

government’s claim for past response 

costs in return for a total payment of $1 

million into the Hazardous Substances 

Superfund. 

The Department of Justice will receive 

for a period of thirty (30) days from the 

date of this publication comments 

relating to the Decree. Comments should 

be addressed to the Assistant Attorney 

General, Environment and Natural 

Resources Division, and either e-mailed 

to pubcomment-ees.enrd@usdoj.gov or 

mailed to P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

20044–7611, and should refer to United 

States v. Citibank Global Market 

Holdings, Inc., D.J. Ref. 90–11–3–08705/ 

1. 

The Decree may be examined at the 

Office of the United States Attorney, 

1200 Epic Center, 301 N. Main, Wichita, 

Kansas 67202. During the public 

comment period, the Decree, may also 

be examined on the following 

Department of Justice Web site, to 

http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/ 

Consent_Decrees.html. A copy of the 

Decree may also be obtained by mail 

from the Consent Decree Library, P.O. 

Box 7611, U.S. Department of Justice, 

Washington, DC 20044–7611 or by 

faxing or e-mailing a request to Tonia 

Fleetwood (tonia.fleetwood@usdoj.gov), 

fax no. (202) 514–0097, phone 

confirmation number (202) 514–1547. In 

requesting a copy from the Consent 

Decree Library, please enclose a check 

in the amount of $4.25 (25 cents per 

page reproduction cost) payable to the 

U.S. Treasury or, if by e-mail or fax, 

forward a check in that amount to the 

Consent Decree Library at the stated 

address. 

Robert E. Maher, Jr., 

Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement 

Section, Environment and Natural Resources 

Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–709 Filed 1–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives 

[OMB Number 1140–0051] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Proposed Collection; 

Comments Requested 

ACTION: 60-Day Notice of Information 

Collection Under Review: Certification 

of Secure Gun Storage or Safety Devices. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ), 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF), will be 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and approval in accordance with 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. 

The proposed information collection is 

published to obtain comments from the 

public and affected agencies. Comments 

are encouraged and will be accepted for 

‘‘sixty days’’ until March 16, 2009. This 

process is conducted in accordance with 

5 CFR 1320.10. 

If you have comments especially on 

the estimated public burden or 

associated response time, suggestions, 

or need a copy of the proposed 

information collection instrument with 

instructions or additional information, 

please contact Patricia Power, Chief, 

Federal Firearms Licensing Center, 244 

Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405. 

Written comments and suggestions 

from the public and affected agencies 

concerning the proposed collection of 

information are encouraged. Your 

comments should address one or more 

of the following four points: 

—Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

—Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

—Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices 5819 

Dated: January 26, 2009. 

Ronald Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–2182 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of 

Scientific Instruments 

Pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301), we 

invite comments on the question of 

whether instruments of equivalent 

scientific value, for the purposes for 

which the instruments shown below are 

intended to be used, are being 

manufactured in the United States. 

Comments must comply with 15 CFR 

301.5(a)(3) and (4) of the regulations and 

be postmarked on or before February 23, 

2009. Address written comments to 

Statutory Import Programs Staff, Room 

3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

Washington, DC 20230. Applications 

may be examined between 8:30 a.m. and 

5 p.m. at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce in Room 3720. 

Docket Number: 08–054. Applicant: 

University of Wisconsin—Madison, 

Purchasing Services, 21 N. Park Street, 

Suite 6101, Madison, WI 53715–1218. 

Instrument: FEI Titan 80–200 Electron 

Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: The instrument will be used to 

measure the structure, composition and 

bonding of a wide variety of materials 

and phenomena, such as 

semiconducting and metallic glasses, 

superconductors including magnesium 

diboride, semiconductors including zinc 

oxide, geochemical reactions confined 

to natural nanopores in minerals, 

nanotubes of titanium dioxide and 

related oxides with and without loading 

of catalytic nanoparticles, and metal 

nanoparticles used as labels in cells. 

Application accepted by Commissioner 

of Customs: October 8, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–059. Applicant: 

Emory University, 1599 Clifton Road, 

4th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30322–4250. 

Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 

JEM–1011. Manufacturer: JEOL, Japan. 

Intended Use: The instrument will be 

used in anatomical studies to help 

students understand a disease such as 

Parkinson’s. Specifically, students will 

be able to visualize axonal tracers after 

intracerebral injection, perfusion, 

sectioning, incubations, EM processing, 

embedding, ultra-thin sectioning and 

observation at the electron microscope 

level. Application accepted by 

Commissioner of Customs: December 

16, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–060. Applicant: 

University of Arizona, Department of 

Chemistry, 1306 E. University 

Boulevard, Tucson, AZ 85721. 

Instrument: FEI Inspect S Scanning 

Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, Czech Republic. Intended 

Use: The instrument will be used to 

characterize a wide variety of materials 

in terms of surface morphology and 

chemical composition. It will also be 

used as the base system for an electron 

beam lithography module which will be 

used to pattern and characterize nanoscale features that represent the next 

generation of molecular electronic 

devices, and as the base system for an 

Energy Dispersive Spectrometer that 

will allow the chemical mapping at the 

same resolution as the SEM images. 

Application accepted by Commissioner 

of Customs: December 16, 2008. 

Dated: January 27, 2009. 

Chris Cassel, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, 

Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–2194 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice 

of Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review of Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 2, 2009. 

SUMMARY: On July 1, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) initiated a sunset 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on certain frozen fish fillets (‘‘fish 

fillets’’) from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). On the basis of a 

notice of intent to participate, and an 

adequate substantive response filed on 

behalf of domestic interested parties, as 

well as a lack of response from 

respondent interested parties, the 

Department conducted an expedited 

sunset review. As a result of the sunset 

review, the Department finds that 

revocation of the antidumping duty 

order would be likely to lead to 

continuation or recurrence of dumping. 

The dumping margins are identified in 

the Final Results of Review section of 

this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Renkey, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 8, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–2312. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On July 1, 2008, the Department 

published the notice of initiation of the 

sunset review of the antidumping duty 

order on fish fillets from Vietnam 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

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

See Initiation of Five-Year (‘‘Sunset’’) 

Review, 73 FR 37411 (July 1, 2008). On 

July 16, 2008, the Department received 

a notice of intent to participate from the 

Catfish Farmers of America (‘‘CFA’’) and 

individual U.S. catfish processors, 

America’s Catch, Consolidated Catfish 

Companies, LLC dba Country Select 

Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., 

Harvest Select Catfish, Inc. dba Alabama 

Catfish Inc., Heartland Catfish 

Company, Magnolia Processing, Inc. dba 

Pride of the Pond, Simmons Farm 

Raised Catfish, Inc., and Southern Pride 

Catfish Company LLC (collectively, 

‘‘Petitioners’’). Submissions of the 

notices of intent to participate filed by 

Petitioners were within the deadline 

specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of 

the Department’s regulations. The 

domestic interested parties claimed 

interested party status under section 

771(9)(C) and (G) of the Act as they 

comprise domestic producers of fish 

fillets in the United States and a trade 

association representative of the 

industry. On July 31, 2008, the 

Department received a substantive 

response from the domestic interested 

parties within the deadline specified in 

section 351.218(d)(3)(i) of the 

Department’s regulations. We did not 

receive responses from any respondent 

interested parties to this proceeding. As 

a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) 

of the Act and section 

351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, the 

Department determined to conduct an 

expedited review of the order. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by this Order is 

frozen fish fillets, including regular, 

shank, and strip fillets and portions 

thereof, whether or not breaded or 

marinated, of the species Pangasius 

Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
5820 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 20 / Monday, February 2, 2009 / Notices 

1Until July 1, 2004, these products were 

classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 

(Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish 

Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater 

Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) 

of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these 

products were classifiable under tariff article code 

0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species 

Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. 

(also known as Pangasius Pangasius), 

and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish 

fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. 

The fillet products covered by the scope 

include boneless fillets with the belly 

flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless 

fillets with the belly flap removed 

(‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets 

cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’), 

which include fillets cut into strips, 

chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other 

shape. Specifically excluded from the 

scope are frozen whole fish (whether or 

not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen 

belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole 

dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and 

eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, crosssection cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are 

the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise 

will be hereinafter referred to as frozen 

‘‘basa’’ and ‘‘tra’’ fillets, which are the 

Vietnamese common names for these 

species of fish. These products are 

classifiable under tariff article codes 

1604.19.4000, 1604.19.5000, 

0305.59.4000, 0304.29.6033 (Frozen 

Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius 

including basa and tra) of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).1 This Order 

covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the 

above specification, regardless of tariff 

classification. Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, our written 

description of the scope of the Order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in this review are 

addressed in the ‘‘Issues and Decision 

Memorandum’’ (‘‘Decision 

Memorandum’’) from John M. 

Andersen, Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, to 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

The issues discussed in the Decision 

Memorandum include the likelihood of 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and the magnitude of the margins likely 

to prevail if the order were revoked. 

Parties can find a complete discussion 

of all issues raised in this review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum, which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit in room 

1117 of the main Commerce building. 

In addition, a complete version of the 

Decision Memorandum can be accessed 

directly on the Web at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and 

electronic version of the Decision 

Memorandum are identical in content. 

Final Results of Review 

Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) 

of the Act, we determine that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on fish 

fillets from Vietnam would be likely to 

lead to continuation or recurrence of 

dumping at the following weightedaverage percentage margins: 

Manufacturers/exporters/producers 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company (‘‘Agifish’’) ............................................................................................... 47.05 

Vinh Hoan Company Limited (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’) ........................................................................................................................................... 36.84 

Nam Viet Company Limited (‘‘Nam Viet’’) ............................................................................................................................................... 53.68 

Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) ................................................................................ 45.81 

An Giang Agriculture and Food Import Export Company (‘‘Afiex’’) ........................................................................................................ 45.55 

Can Tho Animal Fishery Products Processing Export Enterprise (‘‘CAFATEX’’) ................................................................................... 45.55 

Da Nang Seaproducts Import-Export Corporation (‘‘Da Nang’’) ............................................................................................................. 45.55 

Mekongfish Company (‘‘Mekonimex’’) ..................................................................................................................................................... 45.55 

QVD Food Company Limited (‘‘QVD’’) .................................................................................................................................................... 45.55 

Viet Hai Seafood Company Limited (‘‘Viet Hai’’) ..................................................................................................................................... 45.55 

Vinh Long Import-Export Company (‘‘Vinh Long’’) .................................................................................................................................. 45.55 

Vietnam-Wide .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 63.88 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective orders 

(‘‘APO’’) of their responsibility 

concerning the return or destruction of 

proprietary information disclosed under 

APO in accordance with section 351.305 

of the Department’s regulations. Timely 

notification of the return or destruction 

of APO materials or conversion to 

judicial protective order is hereby 

requested. Failure to comply with the 

regulations and terms of an APO is a 

violation which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing the 

results and notice in accordance with 

sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of 

the Act. 

Dated: January 27, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–2195 Filed 1–30–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

House Ear Institute, et al.; Notice of 

Consolidated Decision on Applications 

for Duty-Free Entry of Electron 

Microscopes 

This is a decision consolidated 

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106– 

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 

Related records can be viewed between 

8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, 14th and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC. 

Docket Number: 08–055. Applicant: 

House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, CA 

90057. Instrument: Electron Microscope, 

Model Technai G2 20 TEM. 

Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech 

Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 73 

FR 74703, December 9, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–057. Applicant: 

Louisiana State University, Baton 

Rouge, LA 70803. Instrument: Electron 

Microscope, Model FEI Quanta 3D FEG 

DualBeam. Manufacturer: FEI Company, 

the Netherlands. Intended Use: See 

notice at 73 FR 70961, November 24, 

2008. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
EXPLANATION OF COMMISSION DETERMINATION ON ADEQUACY

in

Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam

 Inv. No. 731-TA-1012 (Review)

On October 6, 2008, the Commission determined that it will proceed to a full review in

the subject five-year review pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1675(c)(3)(B).

 The Commission received a response to the notice of institution of the five-year review

of the antidumping duty order on imports of frozen fish fillets from the Catfish Farmers of

America and the following U.S. catfish processors: America’s Catch, Inc.; Consolidated Catfish

Companies, LLC, dba Country Select Catfish; Delta Pride Catfish, Inc.; Alabama Catfish Inc.,

dba Harvest Select Catfish, Inc.; TT&W Farm Products, Inc., dba Heartland Catfish Co.;

Magnolia Processing, Inc., dba Pride of the Pond; Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, Inc.; and

Southern Pride Catfish Co. LLC. The Commission found this domestic interested party response

to the notice of institution to be individually adequate. Because these companies account for the

majority of U.S. production of the domestic like product, frozen catfish fillets, the Commission

determined that the domestic interested party group response was adequate.

The Commission received one response to the notice of institution from the Vietnam

Association of Seafood Exporters and Producers and 24 member companies that produce and/or

export the subject merchandise. The Commission found this respondent interested party

response to the notice of institution to be individually adequate for the association and the 24

member companies. Because the Commission received an adequate response from foreign

producers accounting for the majority of the subject exports from Vietnam, the Commission

determined that the respondent interested party group response was adequate. Accordingly, the

Commission determined to proceed to a full review.

A record of the Commissioners’ votes is available from the Office of the Secretary and

the Commission’s web site (http://www.usitc.gov).
B-1

APPENDIX B

HEARING WITNESSES

CALENDAR OF PUBLIC HEARING

Those listed below appeared as witnesses at the United States International Trade

Commission’s hearing:

Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam

Inv. No.: 731-TA-1012 (Review)

Date and Time: May 6, 2009 - 9:30 a.m.

Sessions were held in connection with this review in the Main Hearing Room, 500 E Street

(room 101), SW, Washington, D.C.

OPENING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Order (Valerie A. Slater, Akin Gump

Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP)

In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Order:

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP

Washington, D.C.

on behalf of

Catfish Farmers of America

America’s Catch

Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC D/B/A Country Select Catfish

Delta Pride Catfish, Inc.

Harvest Select Catfish, Inc.

Heartland Catfish Company

Pride of the Pond

Simmons Farm Raised Catfish, Inc.

Danny Walker, Chief Executive Officer, Heartland

Catfish Company

Randy Rhodes, President, Harvest Select Catfish, Inc.
In Support of Continuation of

 Antidumping Duty Order (continued):

Ray Renfroe, National Accounts and Southern

Regional Manager, Harvest Select Catfish, Inc.

Joey Lowery, President, Catfish Farmers of America

Daniel W. Klett, Economist, Capital Trade, Inc.

Thomas Rogers, Economist, Capital Trade, Inc.

Valerie A. Slater )

J. David Park )

) – OF COUNSEL

Jarrod M. Goldfeder )

Natalya D. Dobrowolsky )

CLOSING REMARKS:

In Support of Continuation of Order (Valerie A. Slater, Akin Gump

Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP)
C-1

APPENDIX C

SUMMARY DATA

Table C-1

Certain frozen fish fillets: Summary data concerning the U.S. market, 2003-08

(Quantity=1,000 pounds, value=1,000 dollars, unit values, unit labor costs, and unit expenses are per pound; period changes=percent, except where noted)

Reported data Period changes

Item 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

U.S. consumption quantity:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161,482 170,548 182,439 220,693 202,628 212,137 31.4 5.6 7.0 21.0 -8.2 4.7

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 87.1 80.2 77.2 61.8 57.3 54.1 -33.0 -6.9 -2.9 -15.5 -4.5 -3.2

 Importers' share (1):

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.2 18.4 17.8 24.3 23.1 25.1 12.9 6.2 -0.5 6.4 -1.2 2.1

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 1.5 4.9 14.0 19.7 20.8 20.1 0.7 3.4 9.1 5.7 1.1

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.9 19.8 22.8 38.2 42.7 45.9 33.0 6.9 2.9 15.5 4.5 3.2

U.S. consumption value:

 Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364,413 405,920 424,880 519,595 474,482 487,039 33.7 11.4 4.7 22.3 -8.7 2.6

 Producers' share (1) . . . . . . . . . 92.9 88.3 88.5 75.6 70.6 67.9 -25.0 -4.5 0.1 -12.9 -5.0 -2.7

 Importers' share (1):

 Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 10.6 8.3 14.0 14.2 16.1 9.5 4.0 -2.3 5.7 0.2 1.9

 All other sources . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 1.0 3.2 10.4 15.2 16.0 15.5 0.5 2.2 7.2 4.8 0.8

 Total imports . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.1 11.7 11.5 24.4 29.4 32.1 25.0 4.5 -0.1 12.9 5.0 2.7

U.S. imports from:

 Vietnam (2):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,689 31,349 32,548 53,531 46,728 53,305 170.7 59.2 3.8 64.5 -12.7 14.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,228 43,150 35,258 72,872 67,606 78,559 224.2 78.1 -18.3 106.7 -7.2 16.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.23 $1.38 $1.08 $1.36 $1.45 $1.47 19.8 11.9 -21.3 25.7 6.3 1.9

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All other sources (3):

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,176 2,499 8,962 30,870 39,863 44,129 3,651.6 112.5 258.6 244.5 29.1 10.7

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,775 4,169 13,686 54,159 72,121 77,823 4,285.1 134.9 228.2 295.7 33.2 7.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.51 $1.67 $1.53 $1.75 $1.81 $1.76 16.9 10.6 -8.5 14.9 3.1 -2.5

 Ending inventory quantity (2) . . *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***

 All sources:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,865 33,848 41,510 84,401 86,591 97,434 367.0 62.2 22.6 103.3 2.6 12.5

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,003 47,319 48,944 127,031 139,727 156,382 501.4 82.0 3.4 159.5 10.0 11.9

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1.25 $1.40 $1.18 $1.51 $1.61 $1.61 28.8 12.2 -15.7 27.6 7.2 -0.5

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . 39 1,457 2,118 7,466 4,798 5,377 13,687.8 3635.9 45.4 252.5 -35.7 12.1

U.S. producers' (2):

 Average capacity quantity . . . . . 146,079 146,482 150,802 150,001 149,127 137,129 -6.1 0.3 2.9 -0.5 -0.6 -8.0

 Production quantity . . . . . . . . . . 106,591 111,483 114,138 111,763 94,408 97,068 -8.9 4.6 2.4 -2.1 -15.5 2.8

 Capacity utilization (1) . . . . . . . . 73.0 76.1 75.7 74.5 63.3 70.8 -2.2 3.1 -0.4 -1.2 -11.2 7.5

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106,315 107,744 115,750 109,265 96,366 94,572 -11.0 1.3 7.4 -5.6 -11.8 -1.9

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255,666 283,331 308,986 318,030 281,420 277,076 8.4 10.8 9.1 2.9 -11.5 -1.5

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.40 $2.63 $2.67 $2.91 $2.92 $2.93 21.8 9.4 1.5 9.0 0.3 0.3

 Export shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 0 0 0 0 0-100.0 -100.0 (4) (4) (4) (4)

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 0 0 0 0 0 -100.0 -100.0 (4) (4) (4) (4)

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.56 (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4)

 Ending inventory quantity . . . . . 7,502 10,864 9,376 11,592 9,472 11,837 57.8 44.8 -13.7 23.6 -18.3 25.0

 Inventories/total shipments (1) . 7.1 10.1 8.1 10.6 9.8 12.5 5.5 3.0 -2.0 2.5 -0.8 2.7

 Production workers . . . . . . . . . . 2,612 2,608 2,753 2,681 2,480 2,589 -0.9 -0.2 5.6 -2.6 -7.5 4.4

 Hours worked (1,000s) . . . . . . . 5,338 5,128 5,308 5,427 4,925 4,684 -12.3 -3.9 3.5 2.2 -9.3 -4.9

 Wages paid ($1,000s) . . . . . . . . 37,566 37,508 40,095 41,343 39,086 38,994 3.8 -0.2 6.9 3.1 -5.5 -0.2

 Hourly wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $7.04 $7.31 $7.55 $7.62 $7.94 $8.32 18.3 3.9 3.3 0.9 4.2 4.9

 Productivity (pounds per hour) . 20.0 21.7 21.5 20.6 19.2 20.7 3.8 8.9 -1.1 -4.2 -6.9 8.1

 Unit labor costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . $0.35 $0.34 $0.35 $0.37 $0.41 $0.40 14.0 -4.5 4.4 5.3 11.9 -3.0

 Net sales:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,402 108,368 115,235 110,709 97,706 99,273 -7.6 0.9 6.3 -3.9 -11.7 1.6

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258,897 282,459 306,899 317,991 286,029 288,972 11.6 9.1 8.7 3.6 -10.1 1.0

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.41 $2.61 $2.66 $2.87 $2.93 $2.91 20.8 8.1 2.2 7.9 1.9 -0.6

 Cost of goods sold (COGS) . . . . 216,773 245,778 267,658 279,551 258,519 257,065 18.6 13.4 8.9 4.4 -7.5 -0.6

 Gross profit or (loss) . . . . . . . . . 42,124 36,681 39,241 38,440 27,510 31,907 -24.3 -12.9 7.0 -2.0 -28.4 16.0

 SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,048 28,274 29,613 28,926 26,936 28,332 8.8 8.5 4.7 -2.3 -6.9 5.2

 Operating income or (loss) . . . . 16,076 8,407 9,628 9,514 574 3,575 -77.8 -47.7 14.5 -1.2 -94.0 522.8

 Capital expenditures . . . . . . . . . 5,343 4,220 5,684 3,936 2,107 2,225 -58.4 -21.0 34.7 -30.8 -46.5 5.6

 Unit COGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.02 $2.27 $2.32 $2.53 $2.65 $2.59 28.3 12.4 2.4 8.7 4.8 -2.1

 Unit SG&A expenses . . . . . . . . . $0.24 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.28 $0.29 17.7 7.6 -1.5 1.7 5.5 3.5

 Unit operating income or (loss) . $0.15 $0.08 $0.08 $0.09 $0.01 $0.04 -75.9 -48.2 7.7 2.9 -93.2 513.0

 COGS/sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.7 87.0 87.2 87.9 90.4 89.0 5.2 3.3 0.2 0.7 2.5 -1.4

 Operating income or (loss)/

 sales (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 3.0 3.1 3.0 0.2 1.2 -5.0 -3.2 0.2 -0.1 -2.8 1.0

U.S. processors' (5):

 U.S. shipments:

 Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140,617 136,700 140,929 136,292 116,037 114,703 -18.4 -2.8 3.1 -3.3 -14.9 -1.1

 Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338,409 358,601 375,936 392,564 334,755 330,657 -2.3 6.0 4.8 4.4 -14.7 -1.2

 Unit value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2.41 $2.62 $2.67 $2.88 $2.88 $2.88 19.8 9.0 1.7 8.0 0.2 -0.1

 (1) "Reported data" are in percent and "period changes" are in percentage points.

 (2) Compiled from Commission questionnaire responses (imports from Vietnam reported as exports to the United States by VASEP).

 (3) Compiled from official Commerce statistics.

 (4) Not applicable.

 (5) Compiled from official USDA/NASS statistics; used to calculate apparent U.S. consumption.

Note.--Financial data are reported on a fiscal year basis and may not necessarily be comparable to data reported on a calendar year basis. Because of rounding,

figures may not add to the totals shown. Unit values and shares are calculated from the unrounded figures.

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires, official Commerce statistics, and official USDA/NASS data.

C-3

D-1

APPENDIX D

COMMENTS BY U.S. PRODUCERS, IMPORTERS, PURCHASERS, 

AND FOREIGN PRODUCERS REGARDING THE EFFECTS OF THE 

ORDERS AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

D-3

U.S. PROCESSORS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Effect Of The Order

(Question II-18)

The Commission requested U.S. processors to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty order covering imports of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam in terms of its

effect on their firms’ production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases,

employment, revenues, costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development

expenditures, and asset values. Their responses are as follows:

* * * * * * *

Likely Effect Of Revocation Of The Order

(Question II-19)

The Commission requested U.S. processors to describe any anticipated changes in their

production capacity, production, U.S. shipments, inventories, purchases, employment, revenues,

costs, profits, cash flow, capital expenditures, research and development expenditures, or asset

values relating to the production of certain frozen fish fillets in the future if the antidumping duty

order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam were to be revoked. Their responses are as

follows:

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes In Operations In The Event The Order Is Revoked

(Question II-4)

The Commission requested U.S. processors to describe anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization relating to the production of certain frozen fish fillets in the

future if the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam were to be revoked. 

Their responses are as follows:

* * * * * * *
D-4

U.S. IMPORTERS’ COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE

ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Effect Of The Order

(Question II-11)

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe the significance of the existing

antidumping duty order covering imports of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam in terms of its

effect their firm’s imports, U.S. shipments of imports, and inventories. Their responses are as

follows:

* * * * * * *

Likely Effect Of Revocation Of Order

(Question II-12)

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe anticipated changes in their imports,

U.S. shipments of imports, or inventories of certain frozen fish fillets in the future if the

antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam were to be revoked. Their

responses are as follows:

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes In Operations In The Event The Order Is Revoked

(Question II-4) 

The Commission requested U.S. importers to describe anticipated changes in the character

of their operations or organization relating to the importation of certain frozen fish fillets in the

future if the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets form Vietnam were to be revoked.

* * * * * * *

PURCHASER COMMENTS REGARDING LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Likely Effects of Revocation (Question III-38)

 The Commission requested U.S. purchasers to describe likely effects of any revocation of

the antidumping duty order for imports of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. As appropriate,

please discuss any potential effects of revocation of the antidumping duty order on (1) the future

activities of your firm and (2) the market as a whole.

* * * * * * *
D-5

FOREIGN PRODUCERS'/EXPORTERS' COMMENTS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF

THE ANTIDUMPING DUTY ORDER AND THE LIKELY EFFECTS OF REVOCATION

Signficance Of The Order

(Question II-14)

The Commission requested foreign producers/exporters to describe the significance of the

existing antidumping duty order covering imports of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam in

terms of its effect on their firms’ production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports

to the United States and other markets, and inventories. Their responses are as follows:

* * * * * * *

 

Anticipated Changes If The Order Revoked

(Question II-15)

The Commission requested foreign producers/exporters to describe any anticipated changes

in their production capacity, production, home market shipments, exports to the United States and

other markets, or inventories relating to the production of certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam if

the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam were to be revoked. Their

responses are as follows:

* * * * * * *

Anticipated Changes In Operations In The Event The Order Is Revoked

(Question II-4)

The Commission requested foreign producers/exporters to describe anticipated changes in

the character of their operations or organization relating to the production of certain frozen fish

fillets in the future if the antidumping duty order on certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam were to

be revoked. Their responses are as follows:

* * * * * * *

E-1

APPENDIX E

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES OF U.S. PROCESSORS AND PURCHASERS

DISCUSSING THE EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN PRICES OF RAW

MATERIALS AND OTHER FACTORS ON DOMESTIC PROCESSORS 

E-3

Effects of changes in prices of raw materials and other factors on domestic processors

* * * * * * *

F-1

APPENDIX F

OVERVIEW OF VARIANCE CALCULATION

F-3

Table F-1

Certain frozen fish fillets: Variance analysis on results of operations of U.S. processors in the production of frozen

catfish fillets, 2003-08

Calendar and fiscal year

2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Value ($1,000)

Total net sales:

 Price variance 49,670 21,233 6,541 23,146 5,387 (1,644)

 Volume variance (19,595) 2,329 17,899 (12,054) (37,349) 4,587

 Total net sales variance 30,075 23,562 24,440 11,092 (31,962) 2,943

Cost of sales:

Total raw material cost:

 Cost variance (55,564) (32,788) (4,366) (19,149) 6,511 (11,210)

 Volume variance 11,239 (1,336) (11,572) 7,798 24,654 (2,867)

 Net total raw material cost (44,325) (34,124) (15,938) (11,351) 31,165 (14,077)

Direct labor:

 Cost variance (6,090) 1,576 669 (2,190) (1,388) (4,735)

 Volume variance 2,247 (267) (1,799) 1,159 3,587 (455)

 Net direct labor variance (3,843) 1,309 (1,130) (1,031) 2,199 (5,190)

Other factory costs:

 Cost variance 2,156 3,250 (2,749) (1,688) (17,602) 20,945

 Volume variance 3,126 (371) (2,435) 1,713 5,118 (899)

 Net other factory cost variance 5,282 2,879 (5,184) 25 (12,484) 20,046

Byproduct revenue from offal:

 Price variance 2,799 907 141 622 678 601

 Volume variance (205) 24 231 (158) (526) 74

 Net byproduct revenue from offal 2,594 931 372 464 152 675

Net cost of sales:

 Cost variance (56,699) (27,055) (6,306) (22,406) (11,802) 5,600

 Volume variance 16,407 (1,950) (15,574) 10,513 32,834 (4,146)

 Total net cost of sales variance (40,292) (29,005) (21,880) (11,893) 21,032 1,454

Gross profit variance (10,217) (5,443) 2,560 (801) (10,930) 4,397

SG&A expenses:

 Expense variance (4,256) (1,992) 453 (476) (1,408) (964)

 Volume variance 1,971 (234) (1,792) 1,163 3,397 (432)

 Total SG&A variance (2,284) (2,226) (1,339) 687 1,989 (1,396)

Operating income variance (12,501) (7,669) 1,221 (114) (8,941) 3,001

Table continued on next page.
 1

 The variance analysis in this report presents separate variances for raw material, direct labor, other factory costs,

and byproduct revenue. While the underlying mechanics are the same, a standard variance analysis presents a single

variance analysis for cost of sales. 

 2

 If the average sales value for year 2 is higher than the average sales value for year 1, the value of the price

variance shown in the table is positive in terms of explaining the total change in revenue. Similarly, if the total sales

volume in year 2 is greater than the total sales volume in year 1, the sales volume variance is also positive. If the

reverse is true, the price variance and the volume variance would both be negative. 

F-4

Table F-1--Continued

Certain frozen fish fillets: Variance analysis on results of operations of U.S. processors in the production of frozen

catfish fillets, 2003-08

Calendar and fiscal year

2003-08 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Value ($1,000)

Operating income variance

 Price variance 49,670 21,233 6,541 23,146 5,387 (1,644)

 Net cost/expense variance (60,955) (29,047) (5,853) (22,882) (13,210) 4,636

 Net volume variance (1,217) 145 533 (378) (1,117) 9

Source: Compiled from data submitted in response to Commission questionnaires.

Overview of Variance Analysis Calculation

The variance analysis is a useful tool for estimating the extent to which changes in overall

revenue, cost of sales/expenses, and profitability were due to changes in average values (sales, cost of

sales, SG&A expenses) and/or changes in sales volume. It is divided into three primary sections: net

sales variance, cost of sales variance, and SG&A expense variance. Two additional sections, the gross

profit variance and the operating income variance, represent the sum of the two preceding variance

sections, respectively; i.e., the gross profit variance equals the sum of the net sales variance and the net

cost of sales variances, while the operating income variance equals the sum of the gross profit variance

and the SG&A expense variance.1

 The relevant calculations used in the Commission’s standard variance

analysis are outlined as follows:

Total Net Sales Variance

Equals the sum of the price variance and the volume variance. 

Price variance equals the change in unit price (i.e., the average unit sales value in year 2 minus

the average unit sales value in year 1) multiplied by the total sales volume in year 2. 

Volume variance equals the change in sales volume (i.e., total sales volume in year 2 minus the

total sales volume in year 1) multiplied by the average unit sales value in year 1.2

 

Total Cost of Sales Variance

Equals the sum of the cost variance and the volume variance.

Cost variance equals the change in average unit cost of sales (i.e., the average unit cost of sales in

year 1 minus the average unit sales value in year 2) multiplied by the total sales volume in year 2. 
 3

 While the total net sales variances and the total cost of sales variance use the same basic methodology, the total

net sales variance uses average sales value, while the cost of sales variance uses the average cost of sales. The total

net sales variances and the total cost of sales variance are also different in terms of whether changes in prices, costs,

and/or volume are viewed as positive or negative. Since the objective of the variance analysis is to quantify the

effect of changes in prices, costs, expenses, and volume on changes in operating income, changes that increase

operating income (i.e., increasing average sales value, decreasing average costs, increasing sales volumes when sales

are profitable, and decreasing sales volumes when sales are unprofitable) are positive. In contrast, changes which

decrease operating income (i.e., decreasing average sales values, increasing average costs, decreasing sales volumes

when sales are profitable, and increasing sales volumes when sales are unprofitable) are negative. 

 4

 Some care should be given when considering the cost of sales variance and the corresponding volume variance. 

The variance analysis does not distinguish between changes in average cost of sales due to increases/decreases in

variable costs and/or changes due to increases/decreases in fixed cost absorption related to variations in

production/sales volume. While the expanded variance analysis presented in this report separately presents raw

materials, direct labor, and other factory costs, the impact of changes in fixed cost absorption, which would generally

be reflected most noticeably in other factory costs, is not separately isolated. 

 5

 The gross profit variance is the net change in gross profit for the two periods considered; i.e., a negative gross

profit variance indicates that total gross profit was lower in year 2 compared to year 1, while a positive gross profit

variance indicates that total gross profit was higher in year 2 compared to year 1. 

 6

 Similar to the cost of sales variance, the SG&A expense variance has the same limitation noted above in terms

of explaining changes due to increases/decreases in variable costs versus changes due to increased/decreased fixed

cost absorption. A positive SG&A expense variance means that total SG&A expenses declined in year 2 compared

to year 1, while a negative SG&A expense variance indicates that total SG&A expenses increased.

F-5

Volume variance equals the change in sales volume (i.e., total sales volume in year 1 minus the

total sales volume in year 2) multiplied by the average unit cost of sales in year 1.3 4

Gross Profit Variance

Equals the sum of the total net sales variance and the total cost of sales variance.

5

Total SG&A Expense Variance

Equals the sum of the SG&A expense variance and the volume variance.

SG&A expense variance equals the change in average SG&A expenses (i.e., average unit SG&A

expenses in year 1 minus the average unit SG&A expense value in year 2) multiplied by the total

sales volume in year 2. 

Volume variance equals the change in sales volume (i.e., total sales volume in year 1 minus the

total sales volume in year 2) multiplied by average unit SG&A expenses in year 1.6

Operating Income Variance

Equals the sum of the price variance, the sum the cost of sales variance and the SG&A expenses variance,

and the sum of all volume variances. Since the volume variances related to sales and costs of

sales/SG&A expenses generally offset each other (i.e., an increase in sales volume results in a positive

volume variance in the calculation of the net sales variance, while the same increase results in a negative

volume variance in the calculation of the cost of sales variance), the primary components of the operating

income variance are usually the price variance and the cost of sales/SG&A expense variance.