[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10680-10689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4279]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-351-838]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: 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 Brazil with respect to 11 companies.\1\ 
The respondents which the Department selected for individual review are 
Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda (``Aquatica'') and Comercio de 
Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. (``Compescal''). 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'') 
covers August 4, 2004, through January 31, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This figure does not include those companies for which the 
Department is preliminarily rescinding the administrative review. 
See ``Partial Rescission of Review'' section for further discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We preliminarily determine that sales made by Aquatica and 
Compescal have been made below normal value (``NV''). In addition, 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 based on the 
preliminary results for the respondents selected for individual review. 
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: Kate Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, 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) 482-4929 or (202) 482-4007, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain warmwater shrimp from Brazil. See 
Notice of Amended Final Determination and Antidumping Duty Order: 
Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 70 FR 5143 (February 1, 
2005) (``Shrimp Order''). 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 Brazil 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 (February 1, 2006). On February 28, 
2006, the petitioner\2\ 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). Also, on February 
28, 2006, the Department received a timely request under 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(2) to conduct an administrative review of the sales of 
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the following affiliated 
producers/exporters of subject merchandise: CIDA Central De 
Industrializacao E Distribuicao De Alimentos Ltda. and Produmar Cia 
Exportadora de Produtos Do Mar (collectively ``CIDA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 7, 2006, the Department published a notice of initiation 
of administrative review for 50 companies and requested that each 
provide data on the quantity and value 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 
(April 7, 2006) (``Notice of Initiation'').
    During the period April 28 through June 19, 2006, we received 
responses to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire from 19 
companies. We

[[Page 10681]]

did not receive responses to this questionnaire from the remaining 
companies.
    Subsequently, the Department received withdrawal requests with 
respect to many of the companies. However, based upon our consideration 
of the responses to the quantity and value questionnaire and the 
resources available to the Department, we determined that it was not 
practicable to examine all exporters/producers of subject merchandise 
for which a review request remained. As a result, on July 11, 2006, we 
selected the two largest remaining producers/exporters by export volume 
of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil during the POR, Aquatica 
and Compescal, as the mandatory respondents in this review. See 
Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 
Administration, from Irene Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, Office 
2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 
of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Selection of 
Respondents,'' dated July 11, 2006. On this same date, we issued the 
antidumping questionnaire to Aquatica and Compescal.
    On July 20, 2006, we published a notice rescinding the 
administrative review with respect to 34 companies for which the 
requests for an administrative review were withdrawn in a timely 
manner, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). See Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil; Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review; 71 FR 41199 (July 20, 2006).
    We received responses to section A of the questionnaire from 
Aquatica and Compescal on August 15, 2006.
    On August 25, 2006, the Department postponed the preliminary 
results in this review until no later than 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 August 31, 2006, the petitioner submitted comments regarding 
third country market selection with respect to Aquatica and the 
possible existence of a ``particular market situation'' with respect to 
Compescal.
    We received responses to sections B and C of the questionnaire from 
Compescal and Aquatica on September 7 and 8, 2006, respectively.
    We issued supplemental questionnaires to Aquatica and Compescal on 
September 28, 2006, and received responses on October 20, 2006.
    On November 1, 2006, the petitioner submitted additional comments 
on the appropriate comparison markets to be used for Aquatica and 
Compescal.
    On September 20, 2006, the petitioner requested that the Department 
initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Aquatica. On November 6, 
2006, we initiated this investigation. See Memorandum to James Maeder, 
Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled 
``Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for 
Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda.,'' dated November 6, 2006.
    Also on November 6, 2006, we determined that France constitutes the 
appropriate comparison market with respect to Aquatica. See Memorandum 
to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team 
entitled ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review on Certain Frozen 
Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil - Selection of the Appropriate Third 
Country Market for Aquatica,'' dated November 6, 2006.
    On November 9, 2006, we found that a particular market situation 
does not exist which would render Compescal's home market inappropriate 
for purposes of determining NV in this review. See Memorandum to James 
Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled ``Antidumping 
Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
Brazil: Home Market as Appropriate Comparison Market for Comercio de 
Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,'' dated November 9, 2006.
    On November 17, 2006, the petitioner requested that the Department 
initiate a sales-below-cost investigation of Compescal. This 
investigation was initiated on November 28, 2006. See Memorandum to 
James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team 
entitled ``Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 
Production for Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,'' dated November 
28, 2006.
    Aquatica and Compescal submitted responses to section D of the 
questionnaire on December 6 and 28, 2006, respectively. We issued a 
section D supplemental questionnaire to Aquatica on December 21, 2006, 
and to Compescal on January 10, 2007. On January 11 and 30, 2007, we 
received responses to these supplemental questionnaires from Aquatica 
and Compescal, respectively. We issued a second section D supplemental 
questionnaire to Aquatica on January 18, 2007, and received a response 
on February 1, 2007.
    On January 23, 2007, we published a correction to the scope of the 
order in which we 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 (January 
23, 2007).
    Verifications were conducted in January and February 2007. Sales 
verification reports were issued on February 23, 2007. Cost 
verification reports will be issued following the preliminary results.

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,\3\ shell-on or peeled, 
tail-on or tail-off, deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which includes 
the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the 
scope of this order, regardless of definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (``HTSUS''), are products which are 
processed from warmwater shrimp and prawns through freezing and which 
are sold in any count size.
    The products described above may be processed from any species of 
warmwater shrimp and prawns. Warmwater shrimp and prawns are generally 
classified in, but are not limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 
examples of the farmed and wild-caught warmwater species include, but 
are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 
(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus chinensis), giant river 
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger prawn (Penaeus monodon), 
redspotted shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern brown shrimp 
(Penaeus subtilis), southern pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis), southern 
rough shrimp (Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern white shrimp 
(Penaeus schmitti), blue shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western white 
shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 
indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of this order. In addition, food 
preparations, which

[[Page 10682]]

are not ``prepared meals,'' that contain more than 20 percent by weight 
of shrimp or prawn are also included in the scope of this order.
    Excluded from the scope are: 1) breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 
subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp and prawns generally classified in 
the Pandalidae family and commonly referred to as coldwater shrimp, in 
any state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and prawns whether shell-on or 
peeled (HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and 
prawns in prepared meals (HTS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 5) dried 
shrimp and prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns (HTS 
subheading 1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted shrimp; and 8) certain 
battered shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based product: 1) that is 
produced from fresh (or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled shrimp; 2) to 
which a ``dusting'' layer of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 
purity has been applied; 3) with the entire surface of the shrimp flesh 
thoroughly and evenly coated with the flour; 4) with the non-shrimp 
content of the end product constituting between four and 10 percent of 
the product's total weight after being dusted, but prior to being 
frozen; and 5) that is subjected to IQF freezing immediately after 
application of the dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 
product that, when dusted in accordance with the definition of dusting 
above, is coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or milk, 
and par-fried.
    The products covered by this order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 
0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 
0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 
1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS subheadings are provided 
for convenience and for customs purposes only and are not dispositive, 
but rather the written description of the scope of this order is 
dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Review

    On July 20, 2006, we published a notice rescinding the 
administrative review with respect to 34 companies for which the 
petitioner and CIDA timely withdrew their requests for an 
administrative review, and because no other interested party requested 
a review for these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 
See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil; Partial Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 71 FR 41199 (July 20, 2006).
    Artico was inadvertently omitted from the list of companies for 
which the administrative review was rescinded in July 2006. Artico has 
the same address as Ortico, which was included in our earlier 
rescission notice. Accordingly, we consider Artico and Ortico to be the 
same company.
    In addition, as a result of additional research, we confirmed that 
Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA, Marine Maricultura do Nordeste and 
Marine Maricultura Nordeste SA are, in fact, the same company, and that 
the correct company name is Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA, which is 
no longer in business. We rescinded the administrative review with 
respect to Marine Maricultura do Nordeste in July 2006, as a result of 
the petitioner's timely withdrawal of the request for review of this 
company.
    For these reasons, we are also preliminarily rescinding this review 
with respect to Artico, Marine Maricultura do Nordeste SA and Marine 
Maricultura Nordeste SA.

Aquatica's Affiliated Parties

    Aquatica has three affiliates involved in the production and sale 
of the subject merchandise, two of which exported shrimp to the United 
States during the POR. The third affiliate, Aquafeed, which produces 
feed for larva and shrimp and also sold some frozen shrimp produced by 
Aquatica to France during the POR, together with Aquatica, submitted a 
consolidated questionnaire response to the Department.\4\ In its August 
15 and October 20, 2006, questionnaire responses, Aquatica provided 
information regarding the relationship between Aquatica and its two 
affiliated producers/exporters of subject merchandise at issue during 
the POR. After an analysis of this information, as well as information 
obtained as a result of additional research, we preliminarily determine 
that, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is not appropriate to 
collapse these affiliated entities for purposes of this review because: 
1) there is no common ownership among the companies; 2) no managerial 
employees or board members of one firm are associated with any of the 
other firms; 3) there is no sharing of sales information, involvement 
in pricing and production decisions, sharing of facilities or 
employees, or significant transactions between and among the affiliated 
producers. Thus, there is no potential for manipulation of price or 
production if Aquatica and its affiliates do not receive the same 
antidumping duty rate. For further discussion, see the Memorandum from 
Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor, Senior Analysts, Office 2, to James 
Maeder, Director, Office 2, entitled, ``Whether to Collapse Aquatica 
Maricultura do Brasil Ltda. with Its Affiliated Producers/Exporters in 
the 2004-2006 Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 
from Brazil,'' dated February 28, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Based on information submitted in Aquatica's questionnaire 
responses, as well as information obtained at verification, we have 
accepted Aquatica's claim that its operations are intertwined with 
those of Aquafeed such that they essentially function as one 
company.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Application of Facts Available

    Section 776(a) of the Act provides that the Department will apply 
``facts otherwise available'' if, inter alia, necessary information is 
not available on the record or an interested party: 1) withholds 
information that has been requested by the Department; 2) fails to 
provide such information within the deadlines established, or in the 
form or manner requested by the Department, subject to subsections 
(c)(1) and (e) of section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly impedes a 
proceeding; or 4) provides such information, but the information cannot 
be verified.
    As discussed in the ``Background'' section, above, in April 2006, 
the Department requested that all companies subject to review respond 
to the Department's quantity and value questionnaire for purposes of 
mandatory respondent selection. The original deadline to file a 
response was April 28, 2006. Of the 11 companies subject to review,\5\ 
two companies did not respond to the Department's requests for 
information: SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. and 
Valenca da Bahia Maricultura. Subsequently in May 2006, the Department 
issued letters to these companies affording them a second opportunity 
to submit a response to the Department's quantity and value 
questionnaire. However, these companies also failed to respond to the 
Department's questionnaire after the Department provided a second 
opportunity. By failing to respond to the Department's quantity and 
value questionnaire, these companies withheld requested information and 
significantly impeded the proceeding. Thus, pursuant to sections 
776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because these

[[Page 10683]]

companies did not respond to the Department's questionnaire, the 
Department preliminarily finds that the use of total facts available is 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ This figure does not include those companies for which the 
Department rescinded this administrative review in July 2006, as 
well as the companies for which we are preliminarily rescinding this 
administrative review, as discussed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to section 776(b) of the Act, if the Department finds 
that an interested party fails to cooperate by not acting to the best 
of its ability to comply with requests for information, the Department 
may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of that party in 
selecting from the facts otherwise available. See also Notice of Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Stainless Steel Bar 
from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025-26 (September 13, 2005); and Notice of 
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative 
Critical Circumstances: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 
Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794-96 (August 30, 2002). 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 accompanying the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act, H.R. Rep. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, at 870 (1994) (``SAA''), 
reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198-99. Furthermore, 
``affirmative evidence of bad faith on the part of a respondent is not 
required before the Department may make an adverse inference.'' See 
Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 
27340 (May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 
F.3d 1373, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (``Nippon''). We preliminarily find 
that SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. and Valenca da 
Bahia Maricultura SA did not act to the best of their abilities in this 
proceeding, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, because 
they failed to respond to the Department's requests for information. 
Therefore, an adverse inference is warranted in selecting from the 
facts otherwise available with respect to these companies. See Nippon, 
337 F.3d at 1382-83.
    Section 776(b) of the Act provides that the Department may use as 
AFA, information derived from: 1) the petition; 2) the final 
determination in the investigation; 3) any previous review; or 4) any 
other information placed on the record. The Department's practice, when 
selecting an AFA rate from among the possible sources of information, 
has been to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse ``as to 
effectuate the statutory purposes of the adverse facts available rule 
to induce respondents to provide the Department with complete and 
accurate information in a timely manner.'' See, e.g., Certain Steel 
Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 
(November 7, 2006).
    In order to ensure that the margin is sufficiently adverse so as to 
induce cooperation, we have preliminarily assigned a rate of 349 
percent, which is the highest rate alleged in the petition. See Notice 
of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Frozen and 
Canned Warmwater Shrimp From Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the 
People's Republic of China and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 
3876, 3881 (January 27, 2004). The Department finds that this rate is 
sufficiently high as to effectuate the purpose of the facts available 
rule (i.e., we find that this rate is high enough to encourage 
participation in future segments of this proceeding in accordance with 
section 776(b) of the Act).
    Information from prior segments of the proceeding constitutes 
secondary information and section 776(c) of the Act provides that the 
Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that secondary 
information from independent sources reasonably at its disposal. The 
Department's regulations provide that ``corroborate'' means that the 
Department will satisfy itself that the secondary information to be 
used has probative value. See 19 CFR 351.308(d); see also SAA at 870. 
To the extent practicable, the Department will examine the reliability 
and relevance of the information to be used.
    To corroborate the petition margin, we compared it to the 
transaction-specific rates calculated for each respondent in this 
review. We find that it is reliable and relevant because the petition 
rate fell within the range of individual transaction margins calculated 
for the mandatory respondents. See Notice of Preliminary Results of 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; Partial Rescission and 
Postponement of Final Results: Certain Softwood Lumber Products from 
Canada, 71 FR 33964, 33968 (June 12, 2006). Therefore, we have 
determined that the 349 percent margin is appropriate as AFA and are 
assigning it to the uncooperative companies listed above.
    Further, the Department will consider information reasonably at its 
disposal as to whether there are circumstances that would render a 
margin inappropriate. Where circumstances indicate that the selected 
margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department may disregard the 
margin and determine an appropriate margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut 
Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 1996) (where the Department 
disregarded the highest calculated margin as AFA because the margin was 
based on a company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an 
unusually high margin). In the instant case, we examined whether any 
information on the record would discredit the selected rate as 
reasonable facts available and were unable to find any information that 
would discredit the selected AFA rate.
    Because we did not find evidence indicating that the selected 
margin is not appropriate and because this margin falls within the 
range of transaction-specific margins for the mandatory respondents, we 
have preliminarily determined that the 349 percent margin, as alleged 
in the petition, is appropriate as AFA. We are assigning this rate to 
SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. and Valenca da Bahia 
Maricultura SA. For company-specific information used to corroborate 
this rate, see the Memorandum to the File from Kate Johnson and Rebecca 
Trainor, Senior International Trade Compliance Analysts, Office 2, AD/
CVD Operations, entitled ``Corroboration of Data Contained in the 
Petition for Assigning Facts Available Rates in the 2004-2006 
Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from Brazil,'' dated February 28, 2007.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of certain frozen warmwater shrimp by 
Aquatica and Compescal to the United States were made at less than NV, 
we compared EP to the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and 
``Normal Value'' sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the Act, we compared the EPs of 
individual U.S. transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign 
like product where there were sales made in the ordinary course of 
trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section 
below.
    With respect to Compescal, we excluded certain home market sales 
from our analysis which we verified were either cancelled or outside 
the ordinary course of trade. See Memorandum to The File, from Kate 
Johnson and Rebecca Trainor entitled ``Calculation Memorandum for the 
Preliminary Results for Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. 
(Compescal),'' (``Compescal Calculation

[[Page 10684]]

Memorandum'') dated February 28, 2007, for further discussion.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Aquatica and Compescal covered by the description 
in the ``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like 
products for purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to 
U.S. sales. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales to 
sales made in the home market for Compescal and France for Aquatica 
within the contemporaneous window period, which extends from three 
months prior to the month of the U.S. sale until two months after the 
sale. Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to 
U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign 
like product made in the ordinary course of trade. In making the 
product comparisons, we matched foreign like products based on the 
physical characteristics reported by Aquatica and Compescal in the 
following order: cooked form, head status, count size, organic 
certification, shell status, vein status, tail status, other shrimp 
preparation, frozen form, flavoring, container weight, presentation, 
species, and preservative.
    With respect to sales comparisons involving broken shrimp, we 
compared Compescal's sales of broken shrimp in the home market to its 
sales of comparable quality shrimp to the United States. As Aquatica 
did not make any sales of broken shrimp in its comparison market, we 
compared Aquatica's U.S. sales of broken shrimp to constructed value 
(``CV'').

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Aquatica and Compescal, we used EP 
methodology, in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the 
subject merchandise was sold directly to the first unaffiliated 
purchaser in the United States prior to importation and constructed 
export price (``CEP'') methodology was not otherwise warranted based on 
the facts of record.

A. Aquatica

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight, insurance, foreign brokerage, port handling and 
warehousing expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. Aquatica reported port handling expenses as 
direct selling expenses. We reclassified these expenses as movement 
expenses in accordance with our normal practice.
    Based on our sales verification findings, we made revisions to the 
insurance expense reported for certain U.S. sales. See Memorandum to 
The File, from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor entitled ``Aquatica 
Maricultura do Brasil Ltda., Preliminary Results Notes and Margin 
Calculation,'' dated February 28, 2007, (``Aquatica Calculation 
Memorandum'') for further discussion.

B. Compescal

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight, insurance, and port expenses, where 
appropriate, in accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    Because Compescal's aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product was greater than five percent of its aggregate 
volume of U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, we determined that 
its home market was viable. Therefore, we used home market sales as the 
basis for NV in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. See 
Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from 
The Team entitled ``Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain 
Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: Home Market as Appropriate 
Comparison Market for Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,'' dated 
November 9, 2006.
    Furthermore, we determined that Aquatica's aggregate volume of home 
market sales of the foreign like product was insufficient to permit a 
proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 
Therefore, with respect to Aquatica, we used sales to France, 
Aquatica's largest third country market, as the basis for comparison-
market sales in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 
CFR 351.404. See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 
Operations, from The Team entitled ``Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil - Selection of 
the Appropriate Third Country Market for Aquatica,'' dated November 6, 
2006.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (``LOT'') as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 
different LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing. Id.; 
See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 
Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 62 
FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 1997) (``Plate from South Africa''). In 
order to determine whether the comparison sales were at different 
stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we reviewed the 
distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of distribution), 
including selling functions, class of customer (customer category), and 
the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\6\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act. See Micron Technology, Inc. v. 
United States, 243 F. 3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general 
and administrative (``SG&A'') expenses, and profit for CV, where 
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it practicable, we 
make an LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is more remote from the factory than 
the CEP LOT and there is no basis for determining whether the 
difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects price comparability 
(i.e., no LOT adjustment

[[Page 10685]]

was practicable), the Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided 
in section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from South Africa, 62 FR 
at 61732-33.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from each 
respondent regarding the marketing stages involved in making the 
reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of 
distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below.

1. Aquatica

    Aquatica reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through 
a single channel of distribution (i.e., directly to U.S. customers/
distributors). We examined the selling activities performed for this 
channel and found that Aquatica performed the following selling 
functions: sales forecasting and strategic and economic planning, 
advertising and marketing, sales promotion, packing, inventory 
maintenance, order input/processing, guarantees, and invoicing. These 
selling activities can be generally grouped into three core selling 
function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) inventory 
maintenance and warehousing; and, 3) warranty and technical support. 
Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that Aquatica 
performed sales and marketing, inventory maintenance and warehousing, 
and warranty and technical support for U.S. sales. Because all sales in 
the United States are made through a single distribution channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    When NV is based on CV, as in this case, the NV LOT is that of the 
sales from which we derive SG&A expenses and profit. (See Notice of 
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 
Postponement of Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon from Chile, 
63 FR 2664 (January 16, 1998)). As discussed below, we based the CV 
selling expenses and profit on the weighted-average selling expenses 
incurred and profits earned by two respondents in the LTFV 
investigation. We are unable to determine that the LOT of the sales 
from which we derived selling expenses and profit for CV is different 
from the EP LOT. Further, because NV is based on CV, there is only one 
NV LOT, and there is insufficient information on the record that would 
enable us to determine that an LOT adjustment is warranted. Therefore, 
we have no basis upon which to make an LOT adjustment to NV.

2. Compescal

    Compescal reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through 
a single channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales to distributors). 
We examined the selling activities performed for this channel, and 
found that Compescal performed the following selling functions: sales 
forecasting and strategic/economic planning, packing, verbal 
guarantees, freight and delivery to port, and invoicing. These selling 
activities can be generally grouped into three core selling function 
categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) freight and 
delivery services; and, 3) warranty and technical support. Accordingly, 
based on the core selling functions, we find that Compescal performed 
sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and warranty and 
technical support for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United 
States are made through a single distribution channel, we preliminarily 
determine that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the home market, Compescal made sales to final 
consumers (restaurants and individuals). Compescal stated that its home 
market sales were made through four channels of distribution: 1) ex-
factory; 2) delivery to the Fortaleza business unit; 3) delivery to the 
Fortaleza business unit and then to the customer; and 4) delivery to 
the Fortaleza business unit and then to the airport. We examined the 
selling activities performed for these channels, and found that 
Compescal performed the following selling functions: packing, verbal 
guarantees, freight and delivery (excluding ex-factory sales), and 
invoicing. These selling activities can be generally grouped into three 
core selling function categories for analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 
2) freight and delivery services; and, 3) warranty and technical 
support. Accordingly, based on the core selling functions, we find that 
Compescal performed sales and marketing and warranty and technical 
support for all home market sales, and freight and delivery services 
for certain home market sales. We do not find that the fact that 
freight and delivery services are not provided for one channel of 
distribution is sufficient to distinguish it as a separate LOT. 
Accordingly, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the 
home market.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the home market LOT and found 
that the core selling functions performed for U.S. and home market 
customers are virtually identical. Therefore, we determined that sales 
to the U.S. and home markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, 
and as a result, no LOT adjustment was warranted.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    Based on our analysis of the petitioner's allegations, we found 
that there were reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that 
Aquatica's and Compescal's sales of frozen warmwater shrimp in the 
third country and home market, respectively, were made at prices below 
their COP. Accordingly, pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we 
initiated sales-below-cost investigations to determine whether 
Aquatica's and Compescal's sales were made at prices below their 
respective COPs. See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, 
AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled ``Petitioners' Allegation of 
Sales Below the Cost of Production for Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil 
Ltda.'' dated November 6, 2006; and Memorandum to James Maeder, 
Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, from The Team entitled 
``Petitioners' Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of Production for 
Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,'' dated November 28, 2006.

1. Calculation of Cost of Production

    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
respondents' cost of production (``COP'') based on the sum of their 
costs of materials and conversion for the foreign like product, plus 
amounts for general and administrative (``G&A'') expenses and interest 
expenses. See ``Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices'' section below 
for treatment of home market/third country selling expenses.
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent 
in its most recent supplemental section D questionnaire response for 
the COP calculation, except for the following instances where the 
information was not appropriately quantified or valued:

a. Aquatica

    1. We disallowed Aquatica's claimed adjustment to its reported 
costs for flood and virus losses because Aquatica did not provide 
sufficient evidence of flood losses and because we determined that the 
virus was not non-recurring, unforeseen or otherwise extraordinary.
    2. We adjusted the cost of larva that was purchased from Aquatica's 
affiliate to reflect the market value of larva in accordance with 
section 773(f)(2) of the Act.

[[Page 10686]]

Our revisions to Aquatica's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum 
from James Balog, Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office 
of Accounting, entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Aquatica 
Maricultura do Brasil Ltda.,'' dated February 28, 2007.

b. Compescal

    1. We disallowed Compescal's offset to the POR larva laboratory and 
farm costs for losses in productivity experienced as a result of a 
viral infection because we determined that the virus was not non-
recurring, unforeseen, or otherwise extraordinary.
    2. We revised the reported total fixed overhead costs to exclude 
only the 2004 and 2005 construction-in-progress costs that were 
actually incurred and capitalized during the POR.
    3. We increased Compescal's cost of raw shrimp obtained from an 
affiliated supplier to reflect the market value of this input in 
accordance with section 773(f)(2) of the Act.
    4. We revised Compescal's reported G&A expense rate calculation to 
include the ``revaluation of depreciation expenses'' that the company 
recorded as an administrative expense in their records. In addition, we 
adjusted the cost of goods sold denominator of the calculation to 
reflect the same basis as the total cost of manufacturing to which the 
rate is applied.
    5. We adjusted the cost of goods sold denominator of the financial 
expense rate calculation to reflect the same basis as the total cost of 
manufacturing to which the rate is applied.
Our revisions to Compescal's COP data are discussed in the Memorandum 
from Heidi Schriefer, Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, 
Office of Accounting, entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed 
Value Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Comercio de 
Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,'' dated February 28, 2007.

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the home market or third country sales of the foreign 
like product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of 
this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. 
The prices were inclusive of interest revenue and exclusive of any 
applicable movement charges, discounts, and direct and indirect selling 
expenses and packing expenses, revised where appropriate. With respect 
to Aquatica, we reclassified certain expenses (i.e., port handling and 
brokerage expenses) as movement expenses because Aquatica had 
incorrectly reported them as direct selling expenses. Based on our 
sales verification findings for Aquatica, we made minor revisions to 
port handling fees reported for certain third country sales and to the 
calculation of indirect selling expenses for all third country sales. 
See Aquatica Calculation Memorandum.

3. Results of the COP Test

    In determining whether to disregard home market or third country 
sales made at prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with 
sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act: 1) whether, within an 
extended period of time, such sales were made in substantial 
quantities; and 2) whether such sales were made at prices which 
permitted the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time 
in the normal course of trade. Where less than 20 percent of the 
respondent's home market or third country sales of a given product are 
at prices less than the COP, we do not disregard any below-cost sales 
of that product, because we determine that in such instances the below-
cost sales were not made within an extended period of time and in 
``substantial quantities.'' Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's 
sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, we disregard 
the below-cost sales because: 1) they were made within an extended 
period of time in ``substantial quantities,'' in accordance with 
sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the Act, and 2) based on our 
comparison of prices to the weighted-average COPs for the POR, they 
were at prices which would not permit the recovery of all costs within 
a reasonable period of time, in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act.
    We found that, for certain specific products, more than 20 percent 
of Compescal's home market sales were at prices less than the COP and, 
in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales 
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    We found that, for all products, Aquatica's third country sales 
were at prices less than the COP, and in addition, such sales did not 
provide for the recovery of costs within a reasonable period of time. 
We therefore excluded all third country sales and used CV as the basis 
for determining NV, in accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    With respect to Compescal, for those U.S. sales of subject 
merchandise for which there were no useable home market sales in the 
ordinary course of trade, we compared EPs to the CV in accordance with 
section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See ``Calculation of Normal Value Based 
on Constructed Value'' section below.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

Compescal
    We based NV for Compescal on delivered, FOB port, FOB airport, or 
ex-factory prices to unaffiliated customers in the home market. We made 
adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price for interest 
revenue. We made deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price 
for foreign inland freight and warehousing expenses, under section 
773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. We recalculated foreign inland freight and 
warehousing expenses for all comparison market sales consistent with 
verification findings. See Compescal Calculation Memorandum.
    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the 
Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstance-of-sale 
(``COS'') for imputed credit expenses, courier fees and documentation 
fees. We recalculated courier fees for all U.S. sales based on 
verification findings. We recalculated home market credit expenses 
using a publicly available average Brazilian short-term lending rate 
relevant to the POR, in accordance with the Import Administration 
Policy Bulletin No. 98.2 (February 23, 1998), because Compescal had no 
home market borrowings during the POR. See Compescal Calculation 
Memorandum.
    We also deducted home market packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

[[Page 10687]]

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison-market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for 
those frozen warmwater shrimp products for which we could not determine 
the NV based on comparison-market sales, either because there were no 
useable sales of a comparable product or all sales of the comparable 
products failed the COP test, we based NV on the CV.
    Section 773(e) of the Act provides that the CV shall be based on 
the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the imported 
merchandise, plus amounts for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. packing 
costs. For each respondent, we calculated the cost of materials and 
fabrication, G&A, and interest based on the methodology described in 
the ``Cost of Production Analysis'' section, above.
    For Aquatica, because all of its comparison-market sales failed the 
COP test and, therefore, were outside the ordinary course of trade, we 
cannot determine selling expenses or profit under section 773(e)(2)(A) 
of the Act, which requires sales by the respondent in question in the 
ordinary course of trade in a comparison market. Likewise, because 
Aquatica did not have sales of any product in the same general category 
of products as the subject merchandise, we are unable to apply 
alternative (i) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of the Act. Further, we cannot 
calculate profit based on alternative (ii) of this section without 
violating our responsibility to protect respondent's administrative 
protective order (APO) information because Compescal is the only other 
respondent with viable home market sales (19 CFR 351.405(b) requires 
that a profit ratio under this alternative be based solely on home 
market sales). If we were to use Compescal's profit ratio exclusively 
under this alternative, Aquatica would be able to determine Compsecal's 
proprietary profit rate. Therefore, we based Aquatica's CV profit and 
selling expenses on the third alternative, any other reasonable method, 
in accordance with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. As a 
reasonable method, we calculated Aquatica's CV profit and selling 
expenses based on the weighted-average selling expense and profit rates 
derived from the comparison-market data of the respondents in the 
previous segment of this proceeding. See Notice of Preliminary 
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of 
Final Determination: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 
Brazil, 69 FR 47081 (August 4, 2004), and Memorandum from James Balog, 
Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 
entitled ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value Calculation 
Adjustments for the Preliminary Results - Aquatica Maricultura do 
Brasil Ltda.,'' dated February 28, 2007. Pursuant to alternative (iii), 
we have the option of using any other reasonable method, as long as the 
result is not greater than the amount realized by exporters or 
producers ``in connection with the sale, for consumption in the foreign 
country, of merchandise that is in the same general category of 
products as the subject merchandise,'' the ``profit cap''. In the 
instant case, the profit cap cannot be calculated using the available 
data because using Compescal's home market data, the only information 
we have to allow us to calculate the amount normally realized by other 
exporters or producers in connection with the sale, for consumption in 
the home market, of merchandise in the same general category, would 
violate our responsibility to protect the respondent's APO information. 
Therefore, as facts available, we are applying option (iii), without 
quantifying a profit cap.
    For Compescal, we based SG&A and profit on the actual amounts 
incurred and realized by Compescal in connection with the production 
and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary course of trade 
for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance with section 
773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made adjustments to CV for each respondent for differences in 
COS in accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 
For comparisons to EP for Compescal, we made COS adjustments by 
deducting direct selling expenses incurred on home market sales from, 
and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. For comparisons to EP 
for Aquatica, we made COS adjustments by deducting direct selling 
expenses derived based on the methodology discussed above, and adding 
U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV.

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars in accordance with 
section 773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 based on the exchange rates 
in effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank.

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period August 4, 2004, through 
January 31, 2006, as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Manufacturer/Exporter                    Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda./                              55.05
 Aquafeed do Brasil Ltda.................
Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.....                          23.11
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This rate is based on the weighted average of the margins 
calculated for those companies selected for individual review, 
excluding de minimis margins or margins based entirely on AFA.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Manufacturer/Exporter                    Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazonas Industrias Alimenticias.........                          48.13
Bramex Brasil Mercantil S.A..............                          48.13
Guy Vautrin Importacao & Exportacao......                          48.13
ITA Fish.................................                          48.13
JK Pesca Ltda............................                          48.13
Lusomar Maricultura Ltda.................                          48.13

[[Page 10688]]

 
Santa Lavinia Comercio E Exportacao Ltda.                          48.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFA Rate Applicable to the Following Companies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Manufacturer/Exporter                    Percent Margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SM Pescados Industria Comercio E                                  349.00
 Exportacao Ltda.........................
Valenca da Bahia Maricultura SA..........                         349.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested 
parties may submit cases briefs not later than 30 days after the date 
of issuance of the last verification report in this case. Rebuttal 
briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not 
later than 35 days after the date of issuance of the last verification 
report in this case. Parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs 
in this proceeding are requested to submit with each argument 1) a 
statement of the issue; 2) a brief summary of the argument; and 3) a 
table of authorities.
    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, Room B-099, 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 the respective case briefs. The Department will issue the 
final results of this administrative review, including the results of 
its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 
days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212. The Department will issue 
appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject to this 
review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the 
final results of this review.
    For Aquatica and Compescal, because they did not report the entered 
value of their U.S. sales, we will calculate importer-specific per-unit 
duty assessment rates by aggregating the total amount of antidumping 
duties calculated for the examined sales and dividing this amount by 
the total quantity of those sales. To determine whether the duty 
assessment rates are de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set 
forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will calculate importer-specific ad 
valorem ratios based on the estimated entered value. For the responsive 
companies which were not selected for individual review, we will 
calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted-average of the cash 
deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual 
review excluding any which are de minimis or determined entirely on 
AFA.
    We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 
appropriate entries covered by this review if any importer-specific 
assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above 
de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to 
antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is de 
minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1). 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 this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, 
where applicable.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 
Policy Notice). This clarification will apply to entries of subject 
merchandise during the POR produced by companies included in these 
final results of review for which the reviewed companies did not know 
that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 
trading company, or exporter) was destined for the United States. In 
such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at 
the ``All Others'' rate if there is no rate for the intermediary 
involved in the transaction. See Assessment Policy Notice for a full 
discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the 
final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: 1) the cash deposit rate for each specific 
company listed above will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent, and 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; 2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the original LTFV investigation, but the 
manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for 
the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and 4) 
the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will 
continue to be 7.05 percent, the ``All Others'' rate made effective by 
the LTFV investigation. See Shrimp Order. These requirements, when 
imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the

[[Page 10689]]

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.
    This administrative review and notice are published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221.

    Dated: February 28, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-4279 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S