Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10645 

reviews of the antidumping duty orders 

on ball bearings and parts thereof from 

Italy and the United Kingdom. 

Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(2) and (4) and 19 CFR 

351.221(c)(3)(i), we will issue 

questionnaires requesting factual 

information for the reviews and will 

publish a notice of preliminary results 

of the antidumping duty changed–

circumstances reviews in the Federal 

Register. The notice will set forth the 

factual and legal conclusions upon 

which our preliminary results are based. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4)(ii), 

interested parties will have an 

opportunity to comment on the 

preliminary results of the reviews. 

During the course of these antidumping 

duty changed–circumstances reviews, 

we will not change the cash–deposit 

requirements for the subject 

merchandise. The cash–deposit rates 

will be altered, if warranted, pursuant 

only to the final results of these reviews. 

This notice of initiation is in 

accordance with section 751(b)(1) of the 

Act and (d), and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1). 

Dated: March 5, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4290 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–893] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2004/2006 

Administrative Review and Preliminary 

Intent To Rescind 2004/2006 New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Commerce (‘‘the Department’’) is 

currently conducting the 2004/2006 

administrative review and a 2004/2006 

new shipper review of the antidumping 

duty order on certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China (‘‘PRC’’). The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) for both the administrative and 

new shipper reviews is July 14, 2004, 

through January 31, 2006. We 

preliminarily determine that sales have 

not been made below normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) with respect to certain exporters 

subject to the administrative review. We 

also have preliminarily found that the 

single sales made by Asian Seafoods 

(Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Asian Seafoods’’) 

and Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. Zhao An, 

Fujian (‘‘Hai Li’’), the new shipper, were 

not bona fide. Further, we are 

preliminarily applying adverse facts 

available to Meizhou Aquatic Products 

Quick-Frozen Industry Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Meizhou’’) and Shantou Red Garden 

Foodstuff/Shantou Red Garden Food 

Processing Co. (collectively, ‘‘Red 

Garden’’). If these preliminary results 

are adopted in our final results of these 

reviews, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

We will issue the final results no later 

than 120 days from the date of 

publication of this notice. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

Begnal or Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1442 or (202) 482–

1386, respectively. 

Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 5149 (February 1, 2005). 

On February 22, 2006, Hai Li, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.214(c), 

requested a new shipper review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC, 

which has a February anniversary 

month. On March 23, 2006, the 

Department initiated a new shipper 

review of Hai Li covering the period 

July 16, 2004, through January 31, 2006. 

See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of New Shipper Review, 71 FR 

14681 (March 23, 2006). 

On February 1, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC. 

See Antidumping or Countervailing 

Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity To Request 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 

(February 1, 2006). 

The Department received timely 

requests from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee and certain 

individual companies, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the 

anniversary month of February, for 

administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty orders on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC 

covering 164 companies. However, on 

March 1, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp 

Trade Action Committee withdrew its 

request for administrative review on one 

company. The Department, therefore, 

initiated an administrative review on 

the remaining 163 companies. See 

Notice of Initiation of Administrative 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

and the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 17813 (April 7, 2006) (‘‘Initiation 

Notice’’). 

The Initiation Notice specified that 

responses to the Department’s quantity 

and value (‘‘Q&V’’) questionnaire were 

due by April 28, 2006. Additionally, the 

Department has a rebuttable 

presumption that a single dumping 

margin is appropriate for all exporters in 

a non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

country. However, the Department 

stated that it would consider 

information submitted in response to 

the Department’s separate rate 

certifications/applications in order to 

determine whether or not respondents 

qualify for a separate rate. The Initiation 

Notice indicated that responses to the 

Department’s separate rate certification 

were due on April 28, 2006, and 

responses to the Department’s separate 

rate application were due May 19, 2006. 

On March 17, 2006, the Department 

received copies of CBP documents 

pertaining to the entry of certain frozen 

warmwater shrimp from the PRC, 

exported by Hai Li during the POR, from 

CBP. See Memorandum to the File 

through Christopher D. Riker, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from Michael Quigley, Case Analyst, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China: Entry 

Package(s) from U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) (December 

11, 2006). On March 21, 2006, the 

Department issued Hai Li its 

antidumping duty questionnaire 

sections A, C, and D. 

On April 14, 2006, Hai Li agreed to 

waive the time limits of its new shipper 

review of certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp from the PRC, pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.214(j)(3), and agreed to have its 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10646 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

1The following 44 companies/corporate 

groupings (i.e., 52 individual firms) responded to 

the Department’s Q&V questionnaire: Meizhou 

Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co., Ltd., 

Shantou Red Garden Foodstuff/Shantou Red 

Garden Food Processing Co., Yelin Enterprise Co., 

Ltd. Hong Kong, Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick 

Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Shantou Yelin Frozen 

Seafood Co. Ltd., Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Products 

Co., Ltd., Savvy Seafood Inc., Hai Li Aquatic Co., 

Ltd. Zhao An, Fujian, Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) 

Co., Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhangjiang) 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang)’’), Allied 

Pacific (H.K.) Co. Ltd. (‘‘Allied Pacific HK’’), 

Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd., 

Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co. Ltd., King Royal 

Investments, Ltd. (collectively ‘‘Allied Pacific’’), 

Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and 

Technology Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Huading Seafood 

Co., Ltd., Dalian FTZ Sea-Rich International 

Trading Co., Ltd., Beihai Zhengwu Industry Co., 

Ltd., Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Shantou 

Yuexing Enterprise Company, Shantou Ruiyuan 

Industry Co., Ltd., Shantou Freezing Aquatic 

Product Food Stuffs Co., Shantou Ocean Freezing 

Industry and Trade General Corporation, Shantou 

Jinhang Aquatic Industry Co., Ltd., Dongri Aquatic 

Products Freezing Plants, Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group 

Co., Ltd. (Shantou Qiaofeng (Group) Co., Ltd.) 

(Shantou/ Chaoyang Qiaofeng)/Shantou City 

Qiaofeng Group, Shantou Wanya Food Factory Co., 

Ltd., Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business Co., 

Ltd., Pingyang Xinye Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., 

Taizhou Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd., Zhejiang 

Cereals, Oils & Foodstuff Import & Export Co., Ltd., 

Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., 

Zhejiang Evernew Seafood Co., Ltd., Zhejiang 

Zhenlong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Cereals, 

Oils, and Foodstuffs Import and Export Co., Ltd., 

Zhoushan Diciyuan Aquatic Products, Zhoushan 

Haichang Food Co., Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd., 

Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd., 

Zhoushan Xifeng Aquatic Co., Ltd., Zhoushan 

Zhenyang Developing Co., Ltd., Zhoushan Guotai 

Fisheries Co., Ltd., Yanti Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd., 

Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food Allocation Co. Ltd., 

Zhanjiang Bobogo Ocean Co., Ltd., Baofa Aquatic 

Products Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Lingshan Aquatic 

Products Co. Ltd., Spectrum Plastics, Ruin 

Huasheng Aquatic Products, and Sealord North 

America. Two additional companies, Fuqing 

Minhua Trade Co., Ltd., and Ocean Duke 

Corporation, responded to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire as affiliates of companies named in 

the Initiation Notice. 

review conducted concurrently with the 

2004/2006 administrative review. See 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of Postponement of Time Limits for New 

Shipper Antidumping Duty Reviews in 

Conjunction with Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 26454 (May 5, 2006). On 

April 25, 2006, Hai Li submitted its 

response to section A of the 

Department’s questionnaire. On May 11, 

2006, Hai Li submitted its response to 

section C and D of the Department’s 

questionnaire, and the Department 

issued Hai Li its supplemental section A 

questionnaire. Hai Li responded to the 

Department’s supplemental section A 

questionnaire on June 1, 2006. 

Of the 163 named firms for which the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review, and consistent with the 

guidelines established in the Initiation 

Notice, on April 28, 2006, 28 firms 

responded to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire. Of these 28 firms, 16 

indicated they had shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR that were 

subject to review and 14 firms 

submitted their separate rate 

certification. Also, on May 19, 2006, 

three firms submitted their separate rate 

application. One of the three, Fuqing 

Minhua Trade Co., Ltd., an affiliate of 

Yelin, was not listed in the Initiation 

Notice; however it submitted a separate 

rate application. Furthermore, on May 

19, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee withdrew its request 

for an administrative review of one 

company: Polypro Plastics. 

On May 22, 2006, the Department sent 

a letter to the remaining firms that did 

not respond to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire and separate rate 

certification/application providing them 

with another opportunity to submit the 

requested information (i.e., by June 5, 

2006). See Memorandum to the File, 

from Christopher D. Riker, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

regarding Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China: Letters 

to Interested Parties Regarding Final 

Opportunity to Submit Quantity and 

Value Questionnaire Response and 

Separate Rate Applications/ 

Certifications (May 22, 2006); see also 

Letter to Whom It May Concern, from 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

regarding 2004–2006 Administrative 

Review of the Antidumping Duty Order 

on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(May 22, 2006) (‘‘Q&V Follow-up 

Letter’’). On May 1, 2006, and May 10, 

2006, one company and 14 companies, 

respectively, filed a letter with the 

Department indicating they had no 

shipments during the POR. On June 5, 

2006, in response to the Department’s 

May 22, 2006, letter, eight more 

companies filed letters indicating they 

had no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR for a total 

of 44 responses (including statements of 

no shipments) to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire.1

Respondents 

Of the 163 named firms for which the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review, nine companies/corporate 

groupings (which consisted of sixteen 

individually initiated companies, some 

of which are affiliated, yielding nine 

potential respondents) had both an 

active request for review, an 

appropriately submitted Q&V 

questionnaire response, and shipments 

of subject merchandise. Thus, nine 

companies/corporate groupings were 

considered in the selection of 

respondents for this review. On June 16, 

2006, the Department selected Meizhou, 

Red Garden, and Yelin Enterprise Co. 

Hong Kong and its affiliates (collectively 

‘‘Yelin’’) as mandatory respondents. See 

Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from James C. Doyle, 

Office Director, Office 9, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

regarding Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of 

Respondents (June 16, 2006). 

The Department sent its antidumping 

questionnaire to Meizhou, Red Garden, 

and Yelin on June 20, 2006. In the 

questionnaire, the Department requested 

that the three firms provide a response 

to section A of the Department’s 

questionnaire by July 11, 2006, and 

sections C and D of the questionnaire by 

July 27, 2006. 

On July 6, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp 

Trade Action Committee withdrew its 

request for an administrative review of 

the following 36 companies: Beihai 

Zhengwu Industry Co., Ltd.; Chaoyang 

Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd. (Shantou 

Qiaofeng (Group) Co., Ltd.) (Shantou/ 

Chaoyang Qiaofeng); Chengai Nichi Lan 

Foods Co., Ltd.; Citic Heavy Machinery; 

Dalian Ftz Sea-Rich International 

Trading Co., Ltd.; Dongri Aquatic 

Products Freezing Plants; Fuqing 

Dongwei Aquatic Products Industry Co. 

Ltd.; Gallant Ocean (Liangjiang) Co. 

Ltd.; Hainan Fruit Vegetable Food 

Allocation Co., Ltd.; Hainan Golden 

Spring Foods Co., Ltd/Hainan Brich 

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Jinfu 

Trading Co., Ltd.; Kaifeng Ocean Sky 

Industry Co., Ltd.; Leizhou Zhulian 

Frozen Food Co., Ltd.; Pingyang Xinye 

Aquatic Products Co. Ltd.; Savvy 

Seafood Inc.; Shanghai Taoen 

International Trading Co., Ltd.; Shantou 

Freezing Aquatic Product Food Stuff 

Co.; Shantou Jinhang Aquatic Industry 

Co., Ltd.; Shantou Jinyuan District 

Mingfeng Quick-Frozen Factory; 

Shantou Long Feng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. 

(Shantou Longfeng Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.); 

Shantou Ruiyaun Industry Co., Ltd.; 

Shantou Shengping Oceanstar Business 

Co. Ltd.; Shantou Wanya Food Factory 

Co. Ltd.; Shantou Yuexing Enterprise 

Company; Xuwen Hailang Breeding Co., 

Ltd.; Yantai Wei-Cheng Food Co., Ltd.; 

Zhangjiang Bobogo Ocean Co., Ltd.; 

Zhangjiang Newpro Food Co., Ltd.; 

Zhanjiang Go-Harvest Aquatic Products 

Co., Ltd.; Zhanjiang Runhai Foods Co., 

Ltd.; Zhanjiang Universal Seafood Corp; 

Zhejiang Cereals, Oils, & Foodstuffs 

Import & Export Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan 

Cereals, Oils, and Foodstuffs Import and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10647 

Export Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Diciyuan 

Aquatic Products; Zhoushan Lizhou 

Fishery Co., Ltd.; and Zhoushan Xifeng 

Aquatic Co., Ltd. 

In turn, on July 31, 2006, the 

Department issued a notice of partial 

rescission for the 36 above-referenced 

companies, as well as Polypro Plastics, 

for whom the Department initiated, in 

part, the first administrative review of 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 

the PRC. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China: Partial Rescission of the First 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 43107 

(July 31, 2006) (‘‘Rescission Notice’’). 

On July 10, 2006, Meizhou submitted 

its response to section A of the 

Department’s questionnaire. On July 11, 

2006, Asian Seafoods submitted a 

voluntary response to section A of the 

Department’s questionnaire. 

On July 12, 2006, Zhanjiang Regal 

Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Zhanjiang Regal’’) submitted a letter 

indicating it had only one POR 

shipment of subject merchandise which 

was already subject to a new shipper 

review. See, e.g., Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

71 FR 70362 (December 4, 2006) 

(‘‘Zhanjiang Regal New Shipper Final 

Results’’). 

On July 17, 2006, counsel for Red 

Garden filed a letter, in lieu of its 

section A response, stating that it had 

decided not to answer the 

questionnaires in this administrative 

review. See Letter to the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, from Red 

Garden, regarding Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China (July 17, 2006) (‘‘Red Garden 

Withdrawal’’). Because Red Garden 

indicated that it did not intend to 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaires in this administrative 

review, we determined to individually 

review Asian Seafoods in its stead, 

pursuant to section 782(a) of the Tariff 

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

See Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 

Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, through Christopher D. Riker, 

Program Manager, Office 9, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Erin C. 

Begnal, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China: Selection of Additional 

Mandatory Respondent (July 26, 2006). 

On July 18, 2006, Yelin submitted its 

response to section A of the 

Department’s questionnaire. On July 25, 

2006, Zhanjiang Regal submitted a letter 

requesting the administrative review of 

the company’s sales be rescinded as 

they were already subject to an ongoing 

new shipper review. On July 25, 2006, 

Hai Li responded to the Department’s 

July 6, 2006, second supplemental 

questionnaire. On July 27, 2006, Asian 

Seafoods submitted its response to 

sections C and D of the Department’s 

questionnaire. 

On August 3, 2006, and September 5, 

2006, the Department invited parties to 

submit comments on the selection of a 

surrogate country and to submit 

publicly available information for 

purposes of calculating normal value. 

See Letter to ‘‘All Interested Parties’’

from Christopher D. Riker, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

regarding 2004/2006 Administrative and 

New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’) (August 3, 

2006); see also Letter to ‘‘All Interested 

Parties’’ from Christopher D. Riker, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

regarding Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper and Administrative Reviews of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China (7/16/ 

04–1/31/06) (September 5, 2006) 

(collectively, ‘‘PAI/Surrogate Country 

Letters’’). 

On August 10, 2006, Meizhou 

submitted its response to sections C and 

D of the Department’s questionnaire. On 

August 11, 2006, the Department issued 

a supplemental section A questionnaire 

to Asian Seafoods and Yelin. On August 

14, 2006, Yelin submitted its response 

to sections C and D of the Department’s 

questionnaire. 

On August 16, 2006, the Department 

issued a memorandum which indicated 

that data from CBP corroborated the 

statements of certain companies which 

reported making no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

See Memorandum to the File, from 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 

2004/2006 Administrative review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China: Intent to 

Rescind Administrative Review, in Part 

(August 16, 2006) (‘‘Intent to Rescind 

Memo’’). Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), the Department indicated 

that it intended to rescind this 

administrative review with respect to: 

Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; 

Guangzhou Lingshan Aquatic Products; 

Ruian Huasheng Aquatic Products; 

Sealord North America; Shantou City 

Qiaofeng Group; Shantou Ocean 

Freezing Industry and Trade General 

Corporation; Spectrum Plastics; Taizhou 

Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd.; 

Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic 

Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Evernew 

Seafood Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang Zhenlong 

Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Guotai 

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (AKA 

Zhoushan Guotai Fisheries Co., Ltd.); 

Zhoushan Haichang Food Co.; 

Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd.; 

Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products 

Co., Ltd.; and Zhoushan Zhenyang 

Developing Co., Ltd. Yantai Xinlai 

Trade also submitted a letter of no 

shipments, on July 13, 2006, to the 

Department. As we found no 

information to contradict this statement, 

we intend to rescind the administrative 

review with respect to Yantai Xinlai 

Trade as well. 

The Department also indicated that it 

was unable to directly serve certain 

companies with the Q&V Follow-up 

Letter. Id. The Department contacted 

petitioners in order to ascertain accurate 

addresses, but petitioners were unable 

to provide additional contact 

information. See, Letter to the 

Department of Commerce, from the Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee, 

regarding Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Brazil, China, Ecuador, 

India, Thailand, and Vietnam: Request 

for Administrative Reviews (March 21, 

2006). Therefore, the Department 

informed parties that it intended to 

rescind the review with respect to these 

companies, in accordance with our 

practice. See, e.g., Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey: 

Preliminary results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455, 

26457 (May 5, 2006) (‘‘Rebar from 

Turkey’’). These companies were: Allied 

Pacific Food; Allied Pacific Aquatic 

Products (Zhongshan) Co., Ltd.; Dhin 

Foong Trdg; Dongri Aquatic Products 

Freezing Plants Shengping; Dongshan 

Xinhefa Food; Evergreen Aquatic 

Product Science and Technology; 

Formosa Plastics; Fuchang Trdg; Fuqing 

City Dongyi Trdg; Fuqing Dongyi 

Trading; Fuqing Fuchang Trading; 

Fuqing Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff; 

Fuqing Xuhu Aquatic Food Trdg; Gaomi 

Shenyuan Foodstuff; Guangxi Lian Chi 

Home Appliance Co; I T Logistics; 

Juxian Zhonglu Foodstuffs; Logistics 

Harbour Dock; Longwei Aquatic 

Foodstuff; Master International 

Logistics; Nichi Lan Food Co. Ltd. Chen 

Hai; P&T International Trading; 

Perfection Logistics Service; Phoenix 

Seafood; Putuo Fahua Aquatic Products 

Co., Ltd.; Qingdao Dayang Jian 

Foodstuffs; Qinhuangdao Jiangxin 

Aquatic Food; Seatrade International; 

Second Aquatic Food; Second Aquatic 

Foodstuffs Fty; Shandong Chengshun 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10648 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

2On August 18, 2006, the Department was 

informed by Meizhou that it was doing business as 

Meizhou Aquatic Products, Meizhou Aquatic, and 

Meizhou Aquatic Products Quick-Frozen Industry 

Co., Ltd., and that the companies were one-and-thesame. See Letter to the Department, from Meizhou, 

regarding Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) (August 18, 

2006). However, because Meizhou withdrew from 

the administrative review, Meizhou did not 

substantiate that these companies were the same 

entity. Therefore, the Department considers these 

three companies to be independent entities. 

Farm Produce Trd; Shandong Sanfod 

Group; Shantou Junyuan Pingyuan 

Foreign Trading; South Bay Intl; 

Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co., 

Ltd.; Tianhe Hardware & Rigging; 

Xiamen Sungiven Imports & Exports; 

Yantai Guangyuan Foods Co; Yantai 

Xuehai Foodstuffs; Yelin Frozen 

Seafood Co.; Zhanjiang CNF Sea 

Products Engineering Ltd; Zhanjiang 

Shunda Aquatic Products; Zhejiang 

Zhongda; Zhejiang Taizhou Lingyang 

Aquatic Products Co.; Zhoushan 

Guangzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; 

Zhoushan International Trade Co., Ltd.; 

Zhoushan Provisions & Oil Food Export 

and Import Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Xi’an 

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; and ZJ CNF 

Sea Products Engineering Ltd. The 

Department was also unable to directly 

serve the following companies with the 

Q&V Follow-up Letter, which were not 

included in the Intent to Rescind Memo: 

Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Co. Ltd., 

Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic Food Trdg., 

Hainan Jiadexin Aquatic Products Co., 

Ltd., Meizhou Aquatic Products,2

Round the Ocean Logistics, Shantou Sez 

Xuhoa Fastness Freeze Aquatic Factory, 

Zhanjiang Fuchang Aquatic Products, 

and Zhanjiang Jebshin Seafood Limited. 

Despite further research, the Department 

was unable to ascertain viable address 

information for these companies. 

Therefore, the Department also intends 

to rescind the review with respect to 

these companies. 

On August 16, 2006, Shantou City 

Qiaofeng Group submitted a letter 

indicating that it is the same company 

as Chaoyang Qiaofeng Group Co., Ltd., 

a company for which the Department 

rescinded the administrative review. 

See Rescission Notice. 

On August 17, 2006, the Department 

issued a supplemental section A 

questionnaire to Meizhou. 

On August 25, 2006, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

preliminary results of review by 120 

days, until February 28, 2007. See 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil, Ecuador, India, the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam, the People’s 

Republic of China, and Thailand: Notice 

of Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of the First 

Administrative Reviews and New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 50387 (August 

25, 2006). 

On September 1, 2006, Yelin and 

Asian Seafoods responded to the 

Department’s supplemental section A 

questionnaires. On September 6, 2006, 

Meizhou submitted its response to the 

Department’s supplemental section A 

questionnaire. 

On September 14, 2006, the Ad Hoc 

Shrimp Trade Action Committee 

submitted criteria for invoking the 

multinational corporation (‘‘MNC’’) 

provision for Yelin, and on September 

26, 2006, Yelin submitted a response. 

On October 6, 2006, the Department 

issued a supplemental section C and D 

questionnaire response to Meizhou, and 

on October 12, 2006, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Yelin. On October 26, 2006, the 

Department issued its second 

supplemental questionnaire to Asian 

Seafoods. On October 27, 2006, the Ad 

Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee 

responded to Yelin’s September 26, 

2006, MNC submission. 

On November 1, 2006, the Department 

rejected Meizhou’s October 27, 2006, 

questionnaire response pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.304(b). The Department, 

however, provided Meizhou with an 

opportunity to correct the filing and to 

submit the requested information. On 

November 9, 2006, Yelin submitted its 

response to the Department’s October 

12, 2006, questionnaire. On November 

6, 2006, Meizhou withdrew from the 

administrative review. See Letter to the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, from 

Meizhou, regarding Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China: Meizhou Aquatic 

Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co., 

Ltd., Shantou (November 6, 2006) 

(‘‘Meizhou Withdrawal’’). On November 

24, 2006, Asian Seafoods submitted its 

response to the Department’s second 

supplemental questionnaire. On 

November 27, 2006, Hai Li submitted its 

response to the Department’s third 

supplemental questionnaire dated 

November 3, 2006. 

On November 30, 2006, Asian 

Seafoods, Allied Pacific, and Hai Li 

submitted publicly available 

information for use in the calculation of 

normal value in the administrative and 

new shipper reviews. Also, Yelin, on 

November 30, 2006, and the Ad Hoc 

Shrimp Trade Action Committee, on 

December 1, 2006, December 21, 2006, 

and January 19, 2007, submitted 

publicly available information for use in 

the calculation of normal value in the 

administrative review. 

On December 1, 2006, and December 

6, 2006, the Department issued its 

verification outlines to Asian Seafoods 

and Hai Li, respectively. The 

Department conducted verification of 

the responses of Asian Seafoods from 

December 8 through 10, 2006, and Hai 

Li from December 13 through 15, 2006. 

On December 8, 2006, Asian Seafoods 

submitted its minor corrections 

presented at the commencement of 

verification. 

On December 13, 2006, the 

Department requested documentation 

supporting Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic 

Product Science and Technology Co., 

Ltd.’s (‘‘Evergreen’’) and Zhoushan 

Huading Seafood Co., Ltd.’s 

(‘‘Huading’’) April 28, 2006, separate 

rate certifications. On December 29, 

2006, Evergreen submitted its separate 

rate supporting documentation. 

On January 8, 2007, the Department 

issued a verification outline to Yelin, 

Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Fuqing Yihua’’), and Ocean Duke 

Corporation (‘‘Ocean Duke’’), affiliates 

of Yelin. The Department conducted 

verification of Yelin’s responses from 

January 15 through 16, 2007, at Fuqing 

Yihua, from January 22 through 23, 

2007, at Yelin, and from January 25 

through 26, 2007, at Ocean Duke. On 

January 11, 2007, the Department issued 

a verification outline to Huading, and 

began verification of its separate rate 

responses on January 18, 2007. See 

Memorandum to the File, through 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin 

Begnal, Trade Compliance Analysts, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 

Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Zhoushan Huading 

Seafood Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s 

Republic of China (February 28, 2007). 

However, on January 18, 2007, Huading 

withdrew from verification and the 

administrative review. 

On January 23, 2007, the Department 

published a correction to the scope of 

the order in which it clarified that the 

scope does not cover warmwater shrimp 

in non-frozen form. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People’s 

Republic of China and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders, 

72 FR 2857 (Jan. 23, 2007). On February 

13, 2006, the Department issued a 

separate rate supplemental 

questionnaire to Evergreen. On February 

20, 2007, Evergreen submitted its 

response to the Department’s separate 

rate supplemental questionnaire. 

On February 28, 2007, the Department 

released the verification reports for 

Asian Seafoods, Hai Li, Zhoushan 

Huading and Yelin and its affiliates 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10649 

3Tails in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. 

and Ocean Duke Corporation. See 

Memorandum to the File, through 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot 

T. Fullerton and Prentiss Lee Smith, 

Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding 

Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) 

Co., Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s 

Republic of China (February 28, 2007) 

(‘‘Asian Seafoods Verification Report’’); 

Memorandum to the File, through 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Scot 

T. Fullerton and Prentiss Lee Smith, 

Trade Compliance Analysts, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding 

Verification of the Sales and Factors 

Response of Hai Li Aquatic Co., Ltd. in 

the Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From the People’s Republic of 

China (February 28, 2007) (‘‘Hai Li 

Verification Report’’); Memorandum to 

the File, from Christopher D. Riker, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, and Erin C. Begnal, Senior 

International Trade Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding 

Verification of the Separate Rate 

Certification of Zhoushan Huading 

Seafood Co., Ltd. in the 2004/2006 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China (February 

28, 2007) (‘‘Huading Verification 

Report’’); see also Memorandum to the 

File, from Christopher D. Riker, Program 

Manager, Office 9, and Erin Begnal, 

Senior International Trade Compliance 

Analyst, Office 9, regarding Verification 

of the Questionnaire Responses of Yelin 

Enterprise Co., Ltd., Hong Kong in the 

Antidumping Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China 

(February 28, 2007); Memorandum to 

the File, from Christopher D. Riker, 

Program Manager, Office 9, and Erin 

Begnal, Senior International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, Office 9, regarding 

Verification of the Factors of Production 

Responses of Fuqing Yihua Aquatic 

Products Co., Ltd., in the Antidumping 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China (February 28, 2007); 

Memorandum to the File, from 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, and Erin 

Begnal, Senior International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9 regarding 

Verification of the Sales Response of 

Ocean Duke Corporation in the 

Antidumping Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China 

(February 28, 2007) (collectively, ‘‘Yelin 

Group Verification Reports’’). 

Surrogate Country and Factors 

As previously stated, on August 3, 

2006, and September 5, 2006, the 

Department provided parties an 

opportunity to submit publicly available 

information (‘‘PAI’’) on surrogate 

countries and values for consideration 

in these preliminary results. As 

previously indicated, the Department 

received comments on November 30, 

2006, December 1, 2006, December 21, 

2006, and January 19, 2007. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,3

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this investigation, regardless of 

definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’), 

are products which are processed from 

warmwater shrimp and prawns through 

freezing and which are sold in any 

count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, white-leg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this 

investigation. In addition, food 

preparations, which are not ‘‘prepared 

meals,’’ that contain more than 20 

percent by weight of shrimp or prawn 

are also included in the scope of this 

investigation. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns ( HTS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS 

subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) Lee Kum Kee’s shrimp 

sauce; (7) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (8) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (9) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled 

shrimp; (2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer 

of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 

percent purity has been applied; (3) 

with the entire surface of the shrimp 

flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with 

the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp 

content of the end product constituting 

between four and 10 percent of the 

product’s total weight after being 

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

that is subjected to individually quick 

frozen (‘‘IQF’’) freezing immediately 

after application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by this 

investigation are currently classified 

under the following HTS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this investigation is dispositive. 

Verification 

On July 17, 2006, the Ad Hoc Shrimp 

Trade Action Committee requested that 

the Department conduct verification of 

the data submitted by all of the firms for 

which the Department initiated an 

administrative review, as well as Hai Li. 

However, due to the Department’s 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10650 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

4Allied Pacific Group indicated this company is 

no longer operational, and also made no shipments 

of subject merchandise during the POR. 

resource constraints in conducting these 

reviews, we only selected Asian 

Seafoods, Hai Li, Yelin, and Huading for 

verification, pursuant to section 

782(i)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.307. 

For the administrative and new 

shipper review respondents that we did 

verify, we used standard verification 

procedures, including on site inspection 

of the manufacturers’ and exporters’

facilities, and examination of relevant 

sales and financial records. Our 

verification results are outlined in the 

verification report for each company. 

For a further discussion, see the Asian 

Seafoods Verification Report, the Hai Li 

Verification Report, the Yelin Group 

Verification Reports, and the Huading 

Verification Report. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 2004/ 

2006 Administrative Review 

Several companies indicated they did 

not export certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp to the United States during the 

POR. In order to corroborate these 

submissions, we reviewed PRC certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp shipment 

data maintained by CBP, and found no 

discrepancies with the statements made 

by these firms. 

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned 

above, we are preliminarily rescinding 

the administrative review with respect 

to: Baofa Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; 

Guangzhou Lingshan Aquatic Products; 

Ruian Huasheng Aquatic Products; 

Sealord North America; Shantou Ocean 

Freezing Industry and Trade General 

Corporation; Spectrum Plastics; Taizhou 

Zhonghuan Industrial Co., Ltd.; Yantai 

Xinlai Trade; Zhejiang Daishan Baofa 

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang 

Evernew Seafood Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang 

Zhenlong Foodstuffs Co., Ltd.; 

Zhoushan Guotai Aquatic Products Co., 

Ltd. (AKA Zhoushan Guotai Fisheries 

Co., Ltd.); Zhoushan Haichang Food Co.; 

Zhoushan Industrial Co., Ltd.; 

Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products 

Co., Ltd.; and Zhoushan Zhenyang 

Developing Co., Ltd. because each 

reported having made no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR, 

and the Department found no 

information to indicate otherwise. 

The Department is also preliminarily 

rescinding the administrative review 

with respect to: Allied Pacific Food; 

Allied Pacific Aquatic Products 

(Zhongshan) Co., Ltd.; 4 Dhin Foong 

Trdg; Dongri Aquatic Products Freezing 

Plants Shengping; Dongshan Xinhefa 

Food; Evergreen Aquatic Product 

Science and Technology; Formosa 

Plastics; Fuchang Trdg; Fuqing City 

Dongyi Trdg; Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic 

Food Co. Ltd., Fuqing Chaohui Aquatic 

Food Trdg.; Fuqing Dongyi Trading; 

Fuqing Fuchang Trading; Fuqing 

Longwei Aquatic Foodstuff; Fuqing 

Xuhu Aqautic Food Trdg; Gaomi 

Shenyuan Foodstuff; Guangxi Lian Chi 

Home Appliance Co; Hainan Jiadexin 

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; I T Logistics; 

Juxian Zhonglu Foodstuffs; Logistics 

Harbour Dock; Longwei Aquatic 

Foodstuff; Master International 

Logistics; Meizhou Aquatic Products; 

Nichi Lan Food Co. Ltd. Chen Hai; P&T 

International Trading; Perfection 

Logistics Service; Phoenix Seafood; 

Putuo Fahua Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; 

Qingdao Dayang Jian Foodstuffs; 

Qinhuangdao Jiangxin Aquatic Food; 

Round the Ocean Logistics; Seatrade 

International; Second Aquatic Food; 

Second Aquatic Foodstuffs Fty; 

Shandong Chengshun Farm Produce 

Trd; Shandong Sanfod Group; Shantou 

Junyuan Pingyuan Foreign Trading; 

Shantou Sez Xuhoa Fastness Freeze 

Aquatic Factory; South Bay Intl; 

Taizhou Lingyang Aquatic Products Co., 

Ltd.; Tianhe Hardware & Rigging; 

Xiamen Sungiven Imports & Exports; 

Yantai Guangyuan Foods Co; Yantai 

Xuehai Foodstuffs; Yelin Frozen 

Seafood Co.; Zhanjiang CNF Sea 

Products Engineering Ltd; Zhanjiang 

Fuchang Aquatic Products; Zhanjiang 

Jebshin Seafood Limited; Zhanjiang 

Shunda Aquatic Products; Zhejiang 

Zhongda; Zhejiang Taizhou Lingyang 

Aquatic Products Co.; Zhoushan 

Guangzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; 

Zhoushan International Trade Co., Ltd.; 

Zhoushan Provisions & Oil Food Export 

and Import Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan Xi’an 

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; and ZJ CNF 

Sea Products Engineering Ltd. because 

the Department was unable to directly 

serve these companies with the Q&V 

Follow-up Letter. Therefore, the 

Department is rescinding the review 

with respect to these companies, in 

accordance with our practice. See Rebar 

from Turkey. 

Additionally, consistent with section 

351.214(j) of the Department’s 

regulations, the Department is 

rescinding the administrative review of 

Zhanjiang Regal because the Department 

has already reviewed all of the 

company’s sales which were made 

during the POR in the context of a new 

shipper review. See Zhanjiang Regal 

New Shipper Final Results. 

Furthermore, the Department is 

rescinding the administrative review of 

Shantou City Qiaofeng Group as this is 

the same company, but with a different 

name, as a company for which the 

administrative review has already been 

rescinded (i.e., Chaoyang Qiaofeng 

Group Co., Ltd.). See Memorandum to 

the File, through Christopher D. Riker, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Enforcement, Office 9, from Michael 

Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Enforcement, Office 9, regarding 2004/ 

2006 Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China: Shantou 

City Qiaofeng Group (August 16, 2006). 

Bona Fide Sale Analysis—Hai Li & 

Asian Seafoods 

For the reasons stated below, we 

preliminarily find that Hai Li’s reported 

U.S. sale during the POR does not 

appear to be a bona fide sale, based on 

the totality of the facts on the record. 

See, e.g., Glycine From The People’s 

Republic of China: Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review 

of Hebei New Donghua Amino Acid Co., 

Ltd., 69 FR 47405, 47406 (August 5, 

2004). Specifically, we find that: (1) The 

difference in the sales price of Hai Li’s 

single POR sale as compared to the 

average unit value of suspended entries 

derived from CBP data; (2) the 

involvement of unaffiliated parties in 

Hai Li’s single POR sale; (3) 

irregularities relating to packing 

materials, and finally, (4) other indicia 

of a non-bona fide transaction, all 

demonstrate that the single sale under 

review was not bona fide. Therefore, 

this sale does not provide a reasonable 

or reliable basis for calculating a 

dumping margin. 

Additionally, for the reasons stated 

below, we preliminarily find that Asian 

Seafood’s reported U.S. sale during the 

POR does not appear to be a bona fide 

sale, based on the totality of the facts on 

the record. See, e.g., Glycine From The 

People’s Republic of China: Rescission 

of Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review of Hebei New Donghua Amino 

Acid Co., Ltd., 69 FR 47405, 47406 

(August 5, 2004). Specifically, we find 

that: (1) The difference in the sales price 

of Asian Seafoods’ single POR sale as 

compared to the prices of its subsequent 

sales and the average unit value of 

suspended entries derived from CBP 

data; (2) irregularities relating to its 

customer correspondence; (3) atypical 

terms for the POR sale, and finally; (4) 

other indicia of a non-bona fide 

transaction, all demonstrate that the 

single sale under review was not bona 

fide. Therefore, this sale does not 

provide a reasonable or reliable basis for 

calculating a dumping margin. 

For the reasons mentioned above, the 

Department preliminarily finds that Hai 

Li’s and Asian Seafood’s single U.S. 

sales during the POR were not bona fide 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10651 

5Laiyang Luhua Foodstuffs refused to accept the 

Q&V Follow-up Letter. See Id. 

commercial transactions and is 

preliminarily rescinding the new 

shipper review of Hai Li, and the 

administrative review of Asian 

Seafoods. For a more detailed analysis, 

see Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, through 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from P. 

Lee Smith, Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, and Scot Fullerton, 

Case Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9 and regarding Bona Fides 

Analysis and Intent to Rescind New 

Shipper Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China for Hai Li Aquatic 

Co., Ltd. Zhao An, Fujian (February 28, 

2007), and Memorandum to James C. 

Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

through Christopher D. Riker, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from Scot Fullerton, Case Analyst, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, regarding 

Bona Fides Analysis and Intent to 

Rescind New Shipper Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China for Asian 

Seafoods (February 28, 2007). 

Non-Market Economy Country 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country. See, e.g., 

Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Final 

Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

34893 (June 16. 2006). Pursuant to 

section 771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a foreign country is 

a NME country shall remain in effect 

until revoked by the administering 

authority. See, e.g., Freshwater Crawfish 

Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 7013 (February 10, 2006); 

and Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and 

Rescission in Part, 71 FR 65073, 65074 

(November 7, 2006). None of the parties 

to this proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Surrogate Country 

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires 

the Department to value an NME 

producer’s factors of production, to the 

extent possible, in one or more marketeconomy countries that (1) are at a level 

of economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country, and (2) are 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. India and Indonesia are 

among the countries comparable to the 

PRC in terms of overall economic 

development. See PAI/Surrogate 

Country Letters. In addition, based on 

publicly available information placed 

on the record (e.g., production data), 

India and Indonesia are significant 

producers of the subject merchandise. 

See Memorandum to The File, through 

James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, and Christopher D. 

Riker, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Michael J. 

Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Michael J. 

Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding 

Antidumping Duty Administrative and 

New Shipper Reviews of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a 

Surrogate Country (February 28, 2007). 

Accordingly, we have selected India as 

the primary surrogate country, and 

Indonesia as a secondary surrogate 

where applicable, for purposes of 

valuing the factors of production 

because they meet the Department’s 

criteria for surrogate-country selection. 

See Id. 

Facts Available 

For the reasons outlined below, we 

have applied total adverse facts 

available to: Ammon International; 

Aquatic Foodstuffs FTY; Dafu Foods 

Industry; Dalian Shanhai Seafood; 

Dalian Shan Li Food; Fuchang Aquatic 

Products; Gallant Ocean International; 

Gallant Seafoods; Go Harvest Aquatic 

Products; Guolian Aquatic Products; 

Hainan Jiadexin Foodstuff; Jinhang 

Aquatic Industry; Laiyang Hengrun 

Foodstuff; Laiyang Luhua Foodstuffs; 

Longsheng Aquatic Product; Luk Ka 

Paper Industry; Marnex; Meizhou 

Aquatic; Meizhou; North Supreme 

Seafood (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; Ocean 

Freezing Industry & Trade General; 

Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd.; Red 

Garden; Red Garden Food, Red Garden 

Foodstuff, Rongcheng Tongda Aquatic 

Food; Shanghai Linghai Fisheries 

Economic and Trading Co.; Shantou 

Longshen Aquatic Product; Silvertie 

Holding; The Second Aquatic food; 

Weifang Taihua Food; Weifang 

Yongqiang Food Ind; Wenling Xingdi 

Aquatic Products; Zhejiang Xintianjiu 

Sea Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang 

Xingyang Import & Export; Zhenjaing 

Evergreen Aquatic Products Science and 

Technology Co., Ltd.; Zhoushan 

Jingzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.; 

and Huading. 

In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department established the deadline for 

Q&V questionnaire responses (i.e., April 

28, 2006). However, the Department did 

not receive responses from: Ammon 

International; Aquatic Foodstuffs FTY; 

Dafu Foods Industry; Dalian Shanhai 

Seafood; Dalian Shan Li Food; Fuchang 

Aquatic Products; Gallant Ocean 

International; Gallant Seafoods; Go 

Harvest Aquatic Products; Guolian 

Aquatic Products; Hainan Jiadexin 

Foodstuff; Jinhang Aquatic Industry; 

Laiyang Hengrun Foodstuff; Laiyang 

Luhua Foodstuffs; Longshen Aquatic 

Product; Luk Ka Paper Industry; 

Marnex; Meizhou Aquatic; North 

Supreme Seafood (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.; 

Ocean Freezing Industry & Trade 

General; Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd.; 

Red Garden Food; Red Garden 

Foodstuff; Rongcheng Tongda Aquatic 

Food; Shanghai Linghai Fisheries 

Economic and Trading Co.; Shantou 

Longshen Aquatic Product; Silvertie 

Holding; The Second Aquatic Food; 

Weifang Taihua Food; Weifang 

Yongqiang Food Ind; Wenling Xingdi 

Aquatic Products; Zhejiang Xintianjiu 

Sea Products Co., Ltd.; Zhejiang 

Xingyang Import & Export; Zhenjaing 

Evergreen Aquatic Products Science and 

Technology Co., Ltd.; and Zhoushan 

Jingzhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. The 

Department sent a Q&V Follow-up Letter 

to each of the above-referenced firms. 

See Q&V Follow-up Letter, see also 

Intent to Rescind Memo. Although each 

of the above-referenced companies 

received the letter, which included the 

Q&V questionnaire, they did not reply 

to the Department.5

By not responding to the 

Department’s Q&V questionnaire, the 

above-referenced companies failed to 

provide critical information to be used 

for the Department’s respondent 

selection process. Pursuant to sections 

776(a) and (b) of the Act, the 

Department may apply adverse facts 

available if it finds a respondent has 

failed to cooperate by not acting to the 

best of its ability to comply with a 

request for information from the 

Department. By failing to respond to the 

Department’s Q&V questionnaire, the 

above-referenced companies have failed 

to act to the best of their ability in this 

segment of the proceeding. 

In addition, because the abovereferenced companies did not submit a 

separate rate application or certification, 

the Department was unable to determine 

whether or not they qualified for a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10652 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

separate rate. Therefore, they are not 

eligible to receive a separate rate and 

will be part of the PRC-wide entity, 

subject to the PRC-wide rate. Pursuant 

to section 776(b) of the Act, we have 

applied total adverse facts available 

with respect to the PRC-wide entity, 

including, among others, the abovereferenced companies. 

For the reasons outlined below, we 

have applied total adverse facts 

available to Red Garden, Meizhou, and 

Huading. Section 776(a)(2) of the Act 

provides that, if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

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

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to section 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

On July 17, 2006, Red Garden 

submitted a letter to the Department 

indicating it would not comply with the 

Department’s requests for information. 

See Red Garden Withdrawal. 

Additionally, on November 6, 2006, 

Meizhou submitted a letter indicating it 

would no longer cooperate with the 

Department in the administrative 

review. See Meizhou Withdrawal. On 

January 18, 2007, Huading also 

withdrew from the administrative 

review. See Letter to the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, from 

Huading, regarding Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China: Zhoushan Huading 

Seafood Co., Ltd. (November 6, 2006). 

As noted above, Red Garden, 

Meizhou, and Huading submitted letters 

to the Department withdrawing their 

participation from the administrative 

review, in lieu of responding to a 

request for information. By not 

responding to the Department’s request 

for information, Red Garden, Meizhou, 

and Huading failed to provide critical 

information to be used for the 

Department’s margin calculation, 

significantly impeded the review, and 

provided unverifiable information. See 

Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from James C. Doyle, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, regarding 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Application of Adverse 

Facts Available to Shantou Red Garden 

Foodstuff/Shantou Red Garden Food 

Processing Co., (February 28, 2007) and 

Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from James C. Doyle, 

Director, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, regarding 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Application of Adverse 

Facts Available to Meizhou Aquatic 

Products Quick-Frozen Industry Co. Ltd. 

Shantou, (February 28, 2007) for further 

discussion on the application of adverse 

facts available to Red Garden and 

Meizhou; see also Memorandum to the 

File, from Christopher D. Riker, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, regarding 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd. 

Analysis for the Preliminary Results of 

the Administrative Review (February 28, 

2007) (‘‘Huading Analysis 

Memorandum’’). Therefore, pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C), and (D) of the 

Act, the Department must apply facts 

available. 

By failing to respond to the 

Department’s requests for information 

and by not allowing the Department to 

conduct verification, Red Garden, 

Meizhou, and Huading, respectively, 

have not proven they are free of 

government control and are therefore 

not eligible to receive a separate rate. In 

the Initiation Notice, the Department 

stated that if one of the companies on 

which we initiated a review does not 

qualify for a separate rate, all other 

exporters of frozen warmwater shrimp 

from the PRC who have not qualified for 

a separate rate are deemed to be covered 

by this review as part of the single PRCwide entity of which the named 

exporter is a part. See Initiation Notice 

at n.1. For these preliminary results, 

Red Garden, Meizhou, and Huading will 

be part of the PRC-wide entity, subject 

to the PRC-wide rate. 

According to section 776(b) of the 

Act, if the Department finds that an 

interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information,’’

the Department may use information 

that is adverse to the interests of the 

party as facts otherwise available. 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to 

ensure that the party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act 

(‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at 

870 (1994). 

As explained above, the PRC-wide 

entity (including Red Garden, Meizhou, 

and Huading) would either not permit 

the Department to verify information 

placed on the record or informed the 

Department that it would not participate 

further in this review and did not 

respond to the Department’s requests for 

information. Therefore, the PRC-wide 

entity did not cooperate to the best of 

its ability. Because the PRC-wide entity 

did not cooperate to the best of its 

ability in the proceeding, the 

Department finds it necessary, pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) of the 

Act, to use adverse facts available 

(‘‘AFA’’) as the basis for these 

preliminary results of review for the 

PRC-wide entity. 

In this segment of the proceeding, in 

accordance with Department practice 

(see, e.g., Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China: Rescission of Second 

New Shipper Review and Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 64 FR 61581, 61584 (November 

12, 1999), as adverse facts available, we 

have assigned to exports of the subject 

merchandise by the above referenced 

companies a rate of 112.81 percent, 

which is the rate established for the 

PRC-wide entity in the LTFV 

investigation. 

However, as discussed in the Huading 

Analysis Memorandum, because 

Huading terminated verification and we 

found reimbursement of antidumping 

duties, it is appropriate to assign 

Zhoushan Huading a rate inclusive of 

the PRC-wide entity rate and the 

reimbursement adjustment. See 

Huading Analysis Memorandum. This is 

consistent with the Department’s past 

practice. See, e.g., 19 CFR 351.402, see 

also, Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results of the First Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006). 

Therefore, in accordance with our 

regulations and past practice, in this 

unique situation in which the 

Department found evidence of 

reimbursement at verification, the cash 

deposit rate assigned to Huading for 

these preliminary results is double that 

of the PRC-wide entity, or 225.62 

percent. See Huading Analysis 

Memorandum. 

Corroboration of Facts Available 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that 

the Department corroborate, to the 

extent practicable, a figure which it 

applies as facts available. To be 

considered corroborated, information 

must be found to be both reliable and 

relevant. We are applying as AFA the 

highest rate from any segment of this 

administrative proceeding, which is the 

rate currently applicable to all exporters 

subject to the PRC-wide rate. The AFA 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10653 

6Although Fuqing Minhua Trade Co. Ltd. 

submitted a separate rate application, the company 

was not listed in the Department’s notice of 

initiation of the administrative review. See 

Initiation Notice. As no review was requested of 

this entity, and the firm is therefore not subject to 

the review, it is not entitled to a separate rate. 

rate in the current review (i.e., the PRCwide rate of 112.81 percent) represents 

the highest rate from the petition in the 

LTFV investigation. See Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 5149 

(February 1, 2005). 

For purposes of corroboration, the 

Department will consider whether that 

margin is both reliable and relevant. The 

AFA rate we are applying for the current 

review was corroborated in the LTFV 

investigation. See, e.g., Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 

(December 8, 2004). No information has 

been presented in the current review 

that calls into question the reliability of 

this information. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996), the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as adverse best 

information available (the predecessor 

to facts available) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin. 

The information used in calculating this 

margin was based on sales and 

production data submitted by the 

petitioner in the LTFV investigation, 

together with the most appropriate 

surrogate value information available to 

the Department chosen from 

submissions by the parties in the LTFV 

investigation, as well as information 

gathered by the Department itself. 

Furthermore, the calculation of this 

margin was subject to comment from 

interested parties in the proceeding. 

Moreover, there were no previous 

reviews of this antidumping duty order. 

As there is no information on the record 

of this review that demonstrates that 

this rate is not appropriately used as 

AFA, we determine that this rate has 

relevance. 

As the 112.81 percent rate is both 

reliable and relevant, we determine that 

it has probative value. Accordingly, we 

determine that the calculated rate of 

112.81 percent, which is the current 

PRC-wide rate, is in accord with the 

requirement of section 776(c) that 

secondary information be corroborated 

to the extent practicable (i.e., that it 

have probative value). We have assigned 

this AFA rate to exports of the subject 

merchandise by the PRC-wide entity. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department begins with a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty deposit rate (i.e., a PRC-wide rate). 

Of the 163 companies initiated upon, 

16 companies filed separate rate 

certifications or applications. Allied 

Pacific Group (i.e., Allied Pacific Food 

(Dalian) Co., Ltd. and its affiliates, 

Allied Pacific Aquatic Products 

(Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang Allied 

Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd., Allied 

Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd., and King Royal 

Investments Ltd.), Red Garden, Yelin 

and its affiliates (i.e., Yangjiang City 

Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., 

Ltd., Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., 

Ltd., Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., 

Ltd., Fuqing Minhua Trade Co. Ltd.,6

Asian Seafoods, Savvy Seafood Inc., 

Evergreen, Huading, Meizhou, and Hai 

Li each filed a separate rate certification 

or application. Because Petitioners 

withdrew its request for review of Savvy 

Seafoods Inc. (See Rescission Notice), 

and we rescinded the review, its 

separate rate status remains unchanged 

from the investigation. 

Six of the companies listed above (i.e., 

Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture 

Co., Ltd.; Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) 

Co., Ltd.; King Royal Investments Ltd.; 

Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick 

Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Shantou Yelin 

Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; and Fuqing 

Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. had no 

shipments or exports of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

this POR and are therefore not eligible 

for a separate rate in this proceeding. 

As referenced above, Red Garden, 

Meizhou, and Huading failed to 

establish that they qualify for a separate 

rate. See Memorandum to Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, from James C. 

Doyle, Director, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

regarding Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Application of 

Adverse Facts Available to Red Garden, 

(February 28, 2007), Memorandum to 

Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant 

Secretary for Import Administration, 

from James C. Doyle, Director, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, regarding Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

to Meizhou Aquatic Products QuickFrozen Industry Co. Ltd. Shantou, 

(February 28, 2007), and Huading 

Analysis Memorandum. 

Further, as discussed above, because 

we are preliminarily rescinding the 

administrative review for Asian 

Seafoods, and the new shipper review 

for Hai Li, because their sales are not 

bona fide, they are ineligible for a 

separate rate. 

Finally, although Fuqing Minhua 

Trade Co. Ltd. submitted a separate rate 

application, the company was not listed 

in the Department’s notice of initiation 

of the administrative review. See 

Initiation Notice. As no review was 

requested of this entity, and the firm did 

not export subject merchandise to the 

United States, it is therefore not entitled 

to a separate rate. See Letter to the 

Department, from Yelin Enterprise Co., 

Ltd. Hong Kong, ant is affiliates, 

regarding Yelin Group: Response to 

Section A–D Supplemental: First 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

China (November 9, 2006). 

The remaining respondents (i.e., 

Yelin, Allied Pacific (Hong Kong), 

Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), and 

Evergreen ) are either entities wholly 

foreign owned and/or limited liability 

companies in the PRC. Thus, for these 

four respondents, a separate rates 

analysis is necessary to determine 

whether the export activities of each 

above-mentioned respondent is 

independent from government control. 

See, e.g. Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Bicycles From the People’s Republic of 

China, 61 FR 19026, 19027 (April 30, 

1996) (‘‘Bicycles’’). To establish whether 

a firm is sufficiently independent in its 

export activities from government 

control to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the Department utilizes a test arising 

from the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from 

the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 

20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’); See 

also Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’), where the Department 

adapted and amplified the separate rates 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10654 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

test set out in Sparklers. Under the 

separate-rates criteria, the Department 

assigns separate rates in NME cases only 

if the respondent can demonstrate the 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

governmental control over its export 

activities. 

1. De Jure Control 

Evidence supporting, though not 

requiring, a finding of de jure absence 

of government control over export 

activities includes: (1) An absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

the individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

id. 

Yelin, Allied Pacific (Hong Kong), 

Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), and 

Evergreen have each placed on the 

administrative record documents to 

demonstrate an absence of de jure 

control (e.g., the 1994 ‘‘Foreign Trade 

Law of the People’s Republic of China,’’

and the 1999 ‘‘Company Law of the 

People’s Republic of China’’). 

As in prior cases, we have analyzed 

the laws presented to us and have found 

them to establish sufficiently an absence 

of de jure control over joint ventures 

between the PRC and foreign 

companies, and limited liability 

companies in the PRC. See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544 

(May 8, 1995) (‘‘Furfuryl Alcohol’’); 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain PartialExtension Steel Drawer Slides with 

Rollers from the People’s Republic of 

China, 60 FR 29571 (June 5, 1995). We 

have no new information in this 

proceeding which would cause us to 

reconsider this determination with 

regard to Yelin, Allied Pacific (Hong 

Kong), Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), and 

Evergreen. 

2. De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

evidence that certain enactments of the 

PRC central government have not been 

implemented uniformly among different 

sectors and/or jurisdictions in the PRC. 

See Silicon Carbide; see also Furfuryl 

Alcohol. Therefore, the Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether the respondents are, in fact, 

subject to a degree of governmental 

control which would preclude the 

Department from assigning separate 

rates. 

The Department typically considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

governmental control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by, or subject to the approval of, 

a governmental authority; (2) whether 

the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding the 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses. See Silicon Carbide; see also 

Furfuryl Alcohol. 

Yelin, Allied Pacific (Hong Kong), 

Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), and 

Evergreen have each asserted the 

following: (1) It establishes its own 

export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts 

without guidance from any 

governmental entities or organizations; 

(3) it makes its own personnel 

decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds 

of its export sales, uses profits according 

to its business needs, and has the 

authority to sell its assets and to obtain 

loans. Additionally, each of these 

companies’ questionnaire responses 

indicates that its pricing during the POR 

does not suggest coordination among 

exporters. 

Consequently, we have preliminarily 

determined that Yelin, Allied Pacific 

(Hong Kong), Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang), 

and Evergreen have each met the criteria 

for the application of separate rates 

based on the documentation each of 

these respondents has submitted on the 

record of these reviews. See 

Memorandum to James C. Doyle, 

Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 

9, through Christopher D. Riker, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Enforcement, Office 9, from Michael 

Quigley, Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Enforcement, Office 9, regarding 2004/ 

2006 Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China: Separate 

Rates Analysis for Respondents 

(Including Exporters Not Being 

Individually Reviewed) (February 28, 

2007). 

Separate Rate Calculation 

Based on timely requests from 

individual exporters and petitioners, the 

Department originally initiated this 

review with respect to 163 companies. 

During the course of the review, 

however, the Department employed a 

limited examination methodology, as it 

did not have the resources to examine 

all companies for which a review 

request was made. As stated previously, 

the Department selected three exporters, 

Yelin, Red Garden (which ultimately 

withdrew and was replaced by Asian 

Seafoods), and Meizhou (which also 

later withdrew) as mandatory 

respondents in this review. Three 

additional companies (Allied Pacific 

HK, Allied Pacific (Zhanjiang) and 

Evergreen) submitted timely 

information as requested by the 

Department and remain subject to 

review as cooperative separate rate 

respondents. 

Yelin participated fully in this review 

and is receiving a preliminary 

antidumping duty rate of zero. As noted 

above, however, the mandatory 

respondents either withdrew from the 

administrative review (i.e., Miezhou and 

Red Garden) or made a non bona fide 

transaction (i.e., Asian Seafoods). As a 

result, these three entities are not 

entitled to a separate rate in this review 

and we are either rescinding the review 

of the company (i.e., Asian Seafoods) or 

the company is being considered to be 

part of the PRC-wide entity (i.e., 

Miezhou and Red Garden). As part of 

the PRC-wide entity, Meizhou and Red 

Garden are receiving a preliminary 

antidumping duty rate of 112.81 

percent. 

The Department must also assign a 

rate to the remaining three cooperative 

separate rate respondents not selected 

for individual examination. We note 

that the statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not directly address the 

establishment of a rate to be applied to 

individual companies not selected for 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

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

Department’s practice in this regard, in 

cases involving limited selection based 

on exporters accounting for the largest 

volumes of trade, has been to weightaverage the rates for the selected 

companies excluding zero and de 

minimis rates and rates based entirely 

on adverse facts available. In the instant 

review, however, the rates for the 

mandatory respondents include only a 

single zero rate and a rate for the PRCwide entity based on total AFA. 

While the statute does not specifically 

address this particular set of 

circumstances, section 735(c)(5)(B) of 

the Act does specify the methodology to 

be followed when a similar fact pattern 

arises in the context of the all-others 

rate established in an investigation. 

While not entirely analogous to the 

determination of a rate to be applied to 

responsive separate rate respondents in 

the context of a NME review, we find it 

to be instructive in these circumstances. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10655 

7We used data from the public version of the 

February 28, 2005, section C response of Essar Steel 

Limited in the antidumping duty administrative 

review of certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat 

products from India, which covers the period 

December 1, 2003, through November 30, 2004. We 

also used information from Agro Dutch Industries 

Ltd., taken from the administrative review of 

preserved mushrooms from India, for which the 

POR was February 1, 2004 through January 31, 

2005. See Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

2018 (January 12, 2006); see also Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From India: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

10646 (March 2, 2006). 

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

that in situations where the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for all exporters and 

producers individually investigated are 

zero or de minimis, or are determined 

entirely under section 776 (facts 

available section), ‘‘the administering 

authority may use any reasonable 

method to establish the estimated allothers rate for exporters and producers 

not individually investigated, including 

averaging the weighted-average 

dumping margins determined for the 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated.’’

The Statement of Administrative 

Action (‘‘SAA’’) states that in using any 

reasonable method to calculate the allothers rate, ‘‘the expected method in 

such cases will be to weight-average the 

zero and de minimis margins and 

margins determined pursuant to the 

facts available, provided that volume 

data is available.’’ See SAA 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, H.Doc. 316, Vol. 1., 

103rd Cong (1994) (SAA) at 203. 

However, the SAA also provides that: 

{I} this method is not feasible, or if it 

results in an average that would not be 

reasonably reflective of potential 

dumping margins for non-investigated 

exporters or producers, Commerce may 

use other reasonable means.’’ Id. 

In this case, because of the nature of 

the shrimp industry, the Department 

preliminarily concludes that it cannot 

accurately determine a margin based on 

information provided by the separate 

rate entities. Furthermore, we 

preliminarily find that we cannot 

employ such alternative methods as 

weight-averaging AFA, de minimis and 

zero rates or partial use of the 

information on the record. Specifically, 

while the separate rates entities have 

given us total volume and value 

information with respect to subject 

merchandise, we note that shrimp 

prices vary dramatically, principally 

due to count-size. Thus margins 

calculated on the basis of average prices 

without regard to count size and other 

factors do not reflect a meaningful, 

accurate comparison. Because the 

Department does not have comparable 

information with respect to the count 

sizes sold by the separate entities, we 

find we must look to other reasonable 

means to determine an appropriate 

margin for the separate rate entities 

subject to this review. In the case of 

Allied Pacific HK and Allied Pacific 

(Zhanjiang), we received voluntary 

questionnaire responses, but we have 

not examined these submissions 

because of the Department’s resource 

constraints and its decision to review 

only three exporters. 

The Department has therefore 

preliminarily determined to apply the 

margin calculated for cooperative 

separate rate respondents in the 

immediately preceding segment of this 

proceeding, i.e., the margin of 53.68 

percent assigned to such companies in 

the LTFV investigation. We believe this 

methodology constitutes a reasonable 

method by which to calculate such rate. 

The rate of 53.68 percent calculated in 

the LTFV was based on the 

Department’s thorough examination of 

several cooperative companies 

accounting for a majority of exports 

during the period of investigation. We 

believe, therefore, that this rate is 

reflective of the range of commercial 

behavior demonstrated by exporters of 

the subject merchandise during a very 

recent period in time. Therefore, we 

find it a reasonable means by which to 

determine a rate for non-examined 

cooperative separate entities and have 

employed this methodology for 

purposes of these preliminary results. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of the 

subject merchandise by Yelin to the 

United States were made at prices below 

normal value (‘‘NV’’), we compared 

each company’s constructed export 

prices (‘‘CEPs’’) to NV, as described in 

the ‘‘Constructed Export Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this notice, 

below. 

Constructed Export Price 

For Yelin, we used CEP methodology 

in accordance with section 772(b) of the 

Act for sales in which the subject 

merchandise was first sold in the United 

States before or after the date of 

importation by a seller affiliated with 

the producer or exporter to an 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made the following 

company-specific adjustments: 

A. Yelin 

We calculated CEP based on packed 

U.S. prices to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States. Where 

appropriate, we made deductions from 

the starting price (gross unit price) for 

foreign inland freight, foreign brokerage 

and handling charges in the PRC, 

international ocean freight, in 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act, as well as imputed inventory 

carrying costs, commissions, credit 

expenses, indirect selling expenses, and 

profit, in accordance with section 772(d) 

of the Act. For additional discussion on 

these, and other specifics pertaining to 

Yelin’s margin calculation, see 

Memorandum to the File, through 

Christopher D. Riker, Program Manager, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, from Erin 

Begnal, Senior International Trade 

Compliance Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, regarding Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

People’s Republic of China—Analysis 

Memorandum for the Preliminary 

Results of Administrative Review of 

Yelin Enterprise Co., Hong Kong 

(February 28, 2007). Because some 

foreign inland freight and foreign 

brokerage and handling fees were 

provided by PRC service providers or 

paid for in renminbi, we based those 

charges on surrogate rates from India. 

See ‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section above 

for further discussion of our surrogatecountry selection. 

To value foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, we used publicly 

summarized or ‘‘ranged’’ expense data 

submitted during the past year by 

Indian companies in connection with 

other antidumping duty administrative 

reviews conducted by the Department.7

In determining the most appropriate 

surrogate values to use in a given case, 

the Department’s stated practice is to 

use investigation or review period-wide 

price averages, prices specific to the 

input in question, prices that are net of 

taxes and import duties, prices that are 

contemporaneous with the period of 

investigation or review, and publicly 

available data. The data we used for 

brokerage and handling expenses fulfill 

all of the foregoing criteria except that 

they are not specific to the subject 

merchandise: there is no information of 

that type on the record of this review. 

We used a simple average of two 

companies’ brokerage expense data in 

order to achieve a more representative 

value than a single source would 

provide. Both sources are of equal 

quality and are contemporaneous with 

the POR. See Bicycles, 61 FR at 19039 

(on using a simple, as opposed to a 

weighted, average in the calculation of 

financial ratios). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10656 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine NV 

using a factors of production 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home market 

prices, third country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department will base NV 

on the factors of production because the 

presence of government controls on 

various aspects of these economies 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under its normal methodologies. 

For purposes of calculating NV, we 

valued the PRC factors of production in 

accordance with section 773(c)(1) of the 

Act. Factors of production include, but 

are not limited to, hours of labor 

required, quantities of raw materials 

employed, amounts of energy and other 

utilities consumed, and representative 

capital costs, including depreciation. 

See section 773(c)(3) of the Act. In 

examining surrogate values, we 

selected, where possible, the publicly 

available value which was an average 

non-export value, representative of a 

range of prices within the POR or most 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 

(December 16, 2004) (‘‘Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates’’). We used the usage 

rates reported by the respondents for 

materials, energy, labor, by-products, 

and packing. For a detailed explanation 

of the methodology used to calculate 

surrogate values, see Memorandum to 

the File, through Christopher D. Riker, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, from Michael Quigley, Case 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

regarding Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China: Selection of Factor Values 

(February 28, 2007) (‘‘Factor Valuation 

Memo’’). 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on the 

factors of production reported by the 

respondents for the POR. We relied on 

the factor specification data submitted 

by the respondents for the abovementioned inputs in their questionnaire 

and supplemental questionnaire 

responses, where applicable, for 

purposes of selecting surrogate values. 

To calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per unit factor quantities by 

publicly available Indian surrogate 

values (except where noted below). In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Indian import surrogate values a 

surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory, where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). Due to the extensive number of 

surrogate values in this administrative 

review, we present a discussion of the 

main factors. For a detailed description 

of all surrogate values used for 

respondents, see Factor Valuation 

Memo. 

Except where discussed below, we 

valued raw material inputs using July 

2004–January 2006 weighted-average 

Indian import values derived from the 

World Trade Atlas online (‘‘WTA’’) (see 

also Factor Valuation Memo). The 

Indian import statistics we obtained 

from the WTA were published by the 

DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India, 

which were reported in rupees. Indian 

surrogate values denominated in foreign 

currencies were converted to U.S. 

dollars using the applicable average 

exchange rate for India for the POR. The 

average exchange rate was based on 

exchange rate data from the 

Department’s Web site. See http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 

Where we could not obtain PAI 

contemporaneous with the POR with 

which to value factors, we adjusted the 

surrogate values for inflation using 

Indian wholesale price indices (‘‘WPIs’’) 

as published in the International 

Monetary Fund’s International 

Financial Statistics. See Factor 

Valuation Memo. 

Furthermore, with regard to the 

Indian import-based surrogate values, 

we have disregarded prices from NME 

countries and those that we have reason 

to believe or suspect may be subsidized 

(i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand). We have found in other 

proceedings that these countries 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific export subsidies. 

Therefore, it is reasonable to believe or 

suspect all exports to all markets from 

these countries are subsidized. See, e.g., 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Helical Spring 

Lock Washers From The People’s 

Republic of China, 58 FR 48833 

(September 20, 1993), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. 

Finally, we excluded imports that 

were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country from the average 

value, because the Department could 

not be certain that they were not from 

either an NME or a country with general 

export subsidies. 

We valued these factors of production 

based on Indian WTA data: shrimp feed; 

antiseptic; anti virus; nutriment; 

sodium; and salt. Additionally, we 

valued these packing factors of 

production based on Indian WTA data: 

cardboard boxes; plastic bags; and 

adhesive tape. See Factor Valuation 

Memo, at Exhibit 5. 

To value raw shrimp, we used 

Indonesian data from an October 2006 

report on shrimp farming in South and 

South-East Asia from the Network of 

Aquaculture Centres in Asia-Pacific 

(http://library.enaca.org/shrimp/ 

publications/NACAStudy/pdf). We 

extrapolated three additional count size 

groups based on the average percentage 

change between the five groups of data 

given in the study. See Id. at Exhibit 2. 

To value shrimp larvae, we used the 

audited 2004–2005 financial statements 

of Sharat Industries Limited, an Indian 

shrimp producer. Trade Pacific, PLLC 

placed this data on the record of this 

review. See Id. at Exhibit 3. 

To value by-products, we used a 

public price quote from an Indonesian 

company that has been used in the 

investigation of this proceeding. See 

Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman 

from Christian Hughes and Adina 

Teodorescu through Maureen Flannery, 

regarding Surrogate Valuation of Shell 

Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

from the People’s Republic of China, 

Administrative Review 9/1/00–8/31/01 

and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00–8/31/ 

01 and 9/1/00–10/15/01 (August 5, 

2002). See Id. at Exhibit 4. 

We valued electricity using the 2000 

total average price per kilowatt hour for 

‘‘Electricity for Industry’’ as reported in 

the International Energy Agency’s 

publication, Energy Prices and Taxes, 

Second Quarter, 2003. We adjusted this 

rate for inflation. See Id. at Exhibit 6. 

We valued heavy oil using the 2005 

first quarter ‘‘Heavy Fuel Oil for 

Industry’’ price as reported in the 

International Energy Agency’s 

publication, Key World Energy Statistics 

2005. See Id. at Exhibit 7. 

To value water, the Department used 

the industrial water rates within the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10657 

8PRC-Wide Rate includes, among others, Red 

Garden and Meizhou. 

Maharashtra Province of India from June 

2003. To achieve comparability of water 

prices to the factors reported for the 

POR, we adjusted this factor value to 

reflect inflation to the POR. See Id. at 

Exhibit 8. 

To value diesel fuel, we used the 2005 

first quarter ‘‘Automotive Diesel Oil’’

price as reported in the International 

Energy Agency’s publication, Key World 

Energy Statistics 2005. See Id. at Exhibit 

9. 

The Department revised its 

calculation of expected wages of 

selected NME countries. See http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. The 

Department’s revised calculation of 

expected NME wages, consistent with 

its normal methodology and with 

section 351.408(c)(3) of the 

Department’s regulations, is based on 

the most current data available as of 

January 2007. The Department’s 

expected NME wage rate for the PRC is 

USD $0.83 per hour. We used this wage 

rate in valuing labor. 

To value PRC inland freight for inputs 

shipped by truck, we used Indian freight 

rates from the following Web site: 

http://www.infreight.com. See Id. at 

Exhibit 11. 

For the domestic ground transport of 

shrimp, we used an Indian refrigerated 

truck freight rate based on price 

quotations provided by Petitioners in 

the investigation of certain frozen 

warmwater shrimp from the PRC from 

CTC Freight Carriers of Delhi, India. See 

Petitioners’ May 21, 2004 surrogate 

value submission at Attachment 6. 

Since the rate was not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we adjusted the rate for 

inflation. See Id. at Exhibit 12. 

To value factory overhead and selling, 

general and administrative (‘‘SG&A’’) 

expenses, and profit, we used data from 

the 2004–2005 financial reports of 

Falcon Marine Exports Limited and 

Nakkanti Sea Foods Limited. These 

Indian companies are shrimp producers 

based on data contained in each Indian 

company’s financial reports. We 

averaged the ratios for the two 

companies. See Id. at Exhibit 10. 

Preliminary Results of Reviews 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following margins exist during the 

period July 16, 2004, through January 

31, 2006: 

CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM THE PRC INDIVIDUALLY REVIEWED EXPORTERS

Yelin Enterprise Co., Hong Kong ............................................................................................................................................................ 0.00 

Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd .............................................................................................................................. 53.68 

Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................................... 53.68 

Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science and Technology Co., Ltd .............................................................................................. 53.68 

Zhoushan Huading Seafood Co., Ltd ...................................................................................................................................................... 225.62 

PRC-Wide Rate 

PRC–Wide Rate 8 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 112.81 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties to these 

proceedings within five days of the date 

of publication of this notice. Any 

interested party may request a hearing 

within 30 days of publication of this 

notice. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of issues to be discussed. See 19 

CFR 351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in case and 

rebuttal briefs. Case briefs from 

interested parties may be submitted not 

later than 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, 

limited to issues raised in the case 

briefs, will be due five days later, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument (1) a statement of 

the issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. Parties are also encouraged to 

provide a summary of the arguments not 

to exceed five pages and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of these reviews, including the 

results of its analysis of issues raised in 

any such written briefs or at the hearing, 

if held, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of the final results 

of this review. For assessment purposes, 

where possible, we calculated importerspecific assessment rates for certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC 

via ad valorem duty assessment rates 

based on the ratio of the total amount of 

the dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. The final 

results of this review shall be the basis 

for the assessment of antidumping 

duties on entries of merchandise 

covered by the final results of these 

reviews and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

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

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC-wide rate of 112.81 percent; 

and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10658 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

1This figure does not include those companies 

for which the Department is preliminarily 

rescinding the administrative review. 

2The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee. 

3As discussed below, for certain of these 

companies, the petitioner subsequently withdrew 

its request for review. 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These administrative and new shipper 

reviews and notice are in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 

and 351.214. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 07–1132 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–840] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from India: Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India 

with respect to 70 companies.1 The 

respondents which the Department 

selected for individual review are Devi 

Marine Food Exports Private Limited 

(DMF), Kader Investment and Trading 

Company Private Limited, Premier 

Marine Products, Kader Exports Private 

Limited (KEPL), Universal Cold Storage 

Private Limited (UCS), and Liberty 

Frozen Foods Private Limited 

(collectively, ‘‘the Liberty Group’’), 

Falcon Marine Exports Limited (Falcon), 

and Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL). 

The respondents which were not 

selected for individual review are listed 

in the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’

section of this notice. This is the first 

administrative review of this order. The 

period of review (POR) is August 4, 

2004, through January 31, 2006. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty 

Group have been made below normal 

value (NV). In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual review, we have 

preliminarily determined a weighted–

average margin for those companies that 

were not selected for individual review 

but were responsive to the Department’s 

requests for information. For those 

companies which were not responsive 

to the Department’s requests for 

information, we have preliminarily 

assigned to them a margin based on 

adverse facts available (AFA). 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Jill Pollack, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration–Room B099, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3874 or (202) 482–4593, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

warmwater shrimp from India. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 

70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 2005) (Shrimp 

Order). Subsequently, on February 1, 

2006, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India for 

the period August 4, 2004, through 

January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 5239 (Feb. 1, 2006). Between 

February 23 and 28, 2006, the 

Department received timely requests 

under 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2) to conduct 

an administrative review of the sales of 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 

the following producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise: Amalgam Foods & 

Beverages Limted, Ananda Aqua 

Exports Private Limited, Asvini Exports, 

Asvini Fisheries Limited, Avanti Feeds 

Limted, Devi Fisheries Limited, Devi 

Seafoods Limited, Falcon, Five Star 

Marine Exports Private Limited, GVR 

Exports Pvt. Ltd., HLL, Jaya Lakshmi 

Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jayalakshmi Sea 

Foods Private Limited, K.R.M. Marine 

Exports, the Liberty Group, Magnum 

Estate Private Limited, Nekkanti Sea 

Foods Limited, Sagar Grandhi Exports 

Pvt. Ltd., Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd., 

Sandhya Marines Limited, Satya 

Seafoods Private Limited, Selvam 

Exports Private Limited, Star Agro 

Marine Exports Private Limited, 

Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited, 

Veejay Impex, Vinner Marine, and 

Wellcome Fisheries Limited. Also on 

February 28, 2006, the petitioner2

submitted a letter timely requesting that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of the sales of 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp made 

by numerous companies during the 

POR, pursuant to section 751(a) of the 

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

and in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1). 

On April 7, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review for 347 

companies and requested that each 

provide data on the quantity and value 

(Q&V) of its exports of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR for mandatory respondent 

selection purposes. These companies 

are listed in the Department’s notice of 

initiation. See Notice of Initiation of 

Administrative Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India and Thailand, 71 FR 

17819 (Apr. 7, 2006) (Notice of 

Initiation). 

During the period April 24 through 

June 12, 2006, we received responses to 

the Department’s Q&V questionnaire 

from 59 companies. We were unable to 

locate 29 companies, and we did not 

receive responses to this questionnaire 

from the remaining companies.3 For 

further discussion, see the ‘‘Application 

of Facts Available’’ section of this 

notice. 

One of the companies that responded 

to our Q&V questionnaire, Coastal 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES