10698 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

1This figure does not include the company for 

which the Department is rescinding the 

administrative review. See ‘‘Partial Rescission of 

Review’’ section for further discussion. 

2The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee. 

publication date, as provided by section 

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

merchandise produced and exported by 

Grobest, the cash-deposit rate will be 

that established in these final results of 

reviews and (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by Grobest, but manufactured 

by any other party, the cash deposit rate 

will be Vietnam-wide rate (i.e., 25.76 

percent). 

Further, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of the 

administrative review for shipments of 

the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results, as provided by 

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

subject merchandise exported by Fish 

One, the cash-deposit rate will be that 

established in these final results of 

review; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other 

Vietnam exporters of subject 

merchandise, which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash-deposit rate will be Vietnamwide rate of 25.76 percent; (4) for all 

non-Vietnam exporters of subject 

merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the Vietnam 

exporter that supplied that 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 also 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. 

This administrative review, the new 

shipper reviews and this notice are in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 

751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act, and 

19 CFR 351.213(g), 351.214(h) and 

352.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4281 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–331–802 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Ecuador: 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 Ecuador 

with respect to 23 companies.1 The 

respondents which the Department 

selected for individual review are 

OceanInvest, S.A. (OceanInvest) and 

Promarisco, S.A. (Promarisco). 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. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by OceanInvest and Promarisco 

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: 

David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, 

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) 

482–4136 or (202) 482–3773, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Ecuador, 70 FR 5156 

(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 Ecuador 

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 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). Also, on February 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: 

Empacadora del Pacifico S.A., 

Empacadora Dufer Cia. Ltda., 

Exporklore, S.A., Promarisco, and 

Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A. 

On April 7, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review for 71 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 27, 2006, 

through June 13, 2006, we received 

responses to the Department’s quantity 

and value questionnaire from 59 

companies. A number of these 

companies reported that their names 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10699 

3Among the 47 companies referenced in the 

rescission notice is one company we determined 

was a duplicate name for another company 

included in the review. 

4 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

were duplicated in the Notice of 

Initiation. 

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 Ecuador during 

the POR, OceanInvest and Promarisco, 

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 Ecuador: Selection of 

Respondents,’’ dated July 11, 2006. On 

this same date, we issued the 

antidumping questionnaire to 

OceanInvest and Promarisco. 

On July 20, 2006, we published a 

notice rescinding the administrative 

review with respect to 47 companies for 

which the requests for an administrative 

review were withdrawn in a timely 

manner,3 in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1). See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador; 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 41198 

(July 20, 2006). 

We received responses to section A of 

the questionnaire from Promarisco and 

OceanInvest on August 8 and August 

15, 2006, respectively. 

On August 11, 2006, the petitioner 

submitted comments regarding third 

country market selection with respect to 

Promarisco. 

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). 

We received responses to sections B 

and C of the questionnaire from 

OceanInvest and Promarisco on 

September 6, 2006. In addition, on this 

date Promarisco submitted a response to 

section D of the questionnaire. 

On September 19, 2006, we published 

a notice amending the initiation and 

partial rescission of the administrative 

review to include an additional 

company which was inadvertently 

omitted. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From Ecuador; Notice of 

Amended Initiation and Amended 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 54797 

(September 19, 2006). 

On September 20, 2006, the petitioner 

requested that the Department initiate a 

sales–below-cost investigation of 

OceanInvest. On October 20, 2006, we 

initiated this investigation. See 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from The Team entitled ‘‘Petitioner’s 

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for OceanInvest S.A.,’’ dated 

October 20, 2006 (OceanInvest COP 

Initiation Memo). On that date, we 

instructed OceanInvest to respond to the 

Department’s section D questionnaire. 

We issued a supplemental section A, 

B, and C questionnaire to OceanInvest 

on September 21, 2006, and received 

responses on October 13 and 17, 2006. 

We issued a supplemental section A, B, 

and C questionnaire to Promarisco on 

October 3, 2006, along with an 

additional information request on 

October 16, 2006, and received 

responses on October 11, 23, and 27, 

2006. 

On October 17, 2006, the petitioner 

submitted additional comments on the 

appropriate comparison market to be 

used for Promarisco. Promarisco 

responded to these comments in its 

October 23, 2006, submission. 

On November 6, 2006, we determined 

that Spain constitutes the appropriate 

comparison market with respect to 

Promarisco. See Memorandum to James 

Maeder, Director Office 2, AD/CVD 

Operations, from The Team entitled 

‘‘Selection of the Appropriate Third 

Country Market for Promarisco,’’ dated 

November 6, 2006. 

OceanInvest submitted its response to 

section D of the questionnaire on 

November 16, 2006. In response to 

Department requests, OceanInvest also 

submitted additional information 

concerning its section B and C 

questionnaire responses on November 9, 

20, and 28, 2006. 

We issued a section D supplemental 

questionnaire to Promarisco on 

November 21, 2006, and to OceanInvest 

on December 19, 2006. On December 22, 

2006, and January 18, 2007, 

respectively, we received responses to 

these supplemental questionnaires. We 

issued additional supplemental section 

D questionnaires to OceanInvest on 

January 24 and February 5, 2007, and to 

Promarisco on February 9, 2007. 

OceanInvest submitted its responses on 

February 2 and 12, 2007, and 

Promarisco submitted its response on 

February 21, 2007. 

We conducted a verification of 

OceanInvest’s reported sales data in 

December 2007, and issued our 

verification report on January 18, 2007. 

In response to our January 22, 2007, 

request, OceanInvest submitted revised 

third–country and U.S. sales data bases 

reflecting certain verification findings 

on January 30, 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). 

We conducted a verification of 

OceanInvest’s reported cost data in 

February 2007. Our cost verification 

report 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, 

shell–on or peeled, tail–on or tail–off,4

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 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10700 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

5The final results of this new shipper review 

were published on September 20, 2006. See Notice 

of Final Results of New Shipper Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador, 71 FR 54977 

(September 20, 2006) (NSR). 

6Pacfish’s response states that it erred in initially 

reporting that it made no shipments during the POR 

and acknowledges that it made a small quantity of 

sales during the POR. See ‘‘Pacfish Response 

Submission to Department’s September 19, 2006, 

Letter,’’ and Memorandum to the File dated October 

31, 2006. This information was generally consistent 

with the data obtained from CBP. Accordingly, we 

have determined that Pacfish was responsive to the 

Department’s request for information, and therefore, 

are assigning to Pacfish the rate applied to other 

non-mandatory respondents in this review. 

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 

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 

In response to our quantity and value 

data solicitation, Studmark, S.A. 

claimed that the only shipment of 

subject merchandise it made during the 

POR was being reviewed in the context 

of a new shipper review that was 

initiated prior to the initiation of this 

administrative review.5 Having 

confirmed the accuracy of this claim 

with CBP, and having issued final 

results in the new shipper review 

covering Studmark’s single shipment, 

we are rescinding this review with 

respect to Studmark, S.A. 

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. 

Doblertel, S.A., Pacfish, S.A. 

(Pacfish), and Sociedad Atlantico 

Pacifico, S.A. claimed that they made no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. However, 

because we were unable to confirm the 

accuracy of these companies’ claims 

with CBP, we requested further 

information/clarification from them. 

Pacfish responded to our request,6 but 

Doblertel, S.A. and Sociedad Atlantico 

Pacifico, S.A. failed to provide the 

requested information/clarification. By 

doing so, these companies withheld 

requested information and significantly 

impeded the proceeding. Therefore, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) 

of the Act, the Department preliminarily 

finds that the use of total facts available 

is appropriate. 

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 Doblertel, S.A. 

and Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10701 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). 

In selecting an appropriate AFA rate, 

the Department considered: 1) the rates 

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, 3879 (January 27, 2004)); 2) the 

rates calculated in the final 

determination of the investigation, 

which ranged from 2.48 to 4.42 percent 

(see Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Ecuador, 70 FR 5156, 5157 

(February 1, 2005) (LTFV Amended 

Final Determination and Order)); and 3) 

the rate calculated in the NSR, 9.20 

percent. As discussed further below, we 

do not find that the rates alleged in the 

petition have probative value for 

purposes of this review. In addition, we 

find that the weighted–average rates 

calculated for respondents in previous 

segments of this proceeding, as well as 

in the instant review, are not 

sufficiently high as to effectuate the 

purpose of the facts available rule (i.e., 

we do not find that any of these rates 

are high enough to encourage 

participation in future segments of this 

proceeding in accordance with section 

776(b) of the Act). Therefore, we have 

preliminarily assigned a rate of 48.61 

percent as AFA, which is the highest 

transaction–specific rate calculated for a 

respondent in this review. The 

Department has applied this 

methodology in previous proceedings, 

such as Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 

Negative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India, 71 FR 45012 ( 

August 8, 2006), and the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 15; and Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon–Quality Steel Plate Products 

From Italy: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 39299 

(July 12, 2006), and the accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 3. We consider the 48.61 

percent rate to be sufficiently high so as 

to encourage participation in future 

segments of this proceeding. 

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. With respect to 

consideration of the rates alleged in the 

petition, information from prior 

segments of the proceeding constitutes 

secondary information and to the extent 

practicable, the Department will 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information to be used. 

Because the companies did not 

submit information to the Department or 

participate in a previous segment of this 

proceeding, we do not have such 

information to consider in determining 

whether the petition rate is relevant to 

each of them. To determine whether the 

margin is reliable and relevant in this 

administrative review, we examined the 

transaction–specific rates of the 

respondents in this administrative 

review compared to the petition rates 

and found that they were not relevant 

for use in this administrative review. 

The highest transaction–specific rate 

calculated for a respondent in this 

review was 48.61 percent, which is 

substantially lower than the lowest 

margin alleged in the petition. We then 

examined the elements of the export 

price (EP) and NV calculations on 

which the margins in the petition were 

based. The petitioner based EP on the 

average unit values (AUVs) for 

Ecuadorian shrimp of various count 

sizes as calculated from CBP data and 

reported on a headless, shell–on (HLSO) 

basis. The petitioner based NV on an 

Italian price list for head–on, shell–on 

(HOSO) shrimp of various count sizes 

and made several adjustments to those 

prices, including conversion from an 

HOSO to an HLSO basis. We compared 

the EPs and NVs in the petition to 

entered values in the U.S. sales listings 

for both respondents, and gross unit 

prices for HLSO shrimp in the Italian 

market from OceanInvest’s sales listing, 

respectively. Although we found the 

U.S. entered values reported in this 

review to be comparable to the AUVs in 

the petition, OceanInvest’s POR sales 

prices in the Italian market were 

substantially different from the NVs in 

the petition. See Memorandum to the 

File entitled ‘‘Procedures Conducted to 

Corroborate Data Contained in Petition 

for Assignment of Appropriate Adverse 

Facts Available Rate,’’ dated February 

28, 2007, for further discussion. 

Therefore, we cannot conclude that the 

petition rates have probative value for 

AFA assignment purposes in this 

review. 

As noted above, we do not find the 

weighted–average rates calculated for 

respondents in this and previous 

segments of this proceeding to be 

sufficiently adverse. Therefore, we are 

applying the highest transaction–

specific rate calculated for the 

mandatory respondents in this review. 

With respect to corroboration of a rate 

calculated in a segment of a proceeding, 

we note that, unlike other types of 

information, such as input costs or 

selling expenses, there are no 

independent sources from which the 

Department can derive dumping 

margins. The only source for calculated 

dumping margins is administrative 

determinations. Thus, in an 

administrative review, if the Department 

chooses as total AFA a calculated 

dumping margin from the current or a 

prior segment of the proceeding, it is not 

necessary to question the reliability of 

the margin for that time period. See, 

e.g., Anhydrous Sodium Metasilicate 

from France: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 68 FR 44283, 44284 (July 28, 

2003) (unchanged in final). Therefore, 

given that we are using the highest of 

the transaction–specific rates calculated 

for the mandatory respondents in this 

administrative review, it is not 

necessary to question the reliability of 

this rate. 

The Department will, however, 

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 (February 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). 

Therefore, we examined whether any 

information on the record would 

discredit the selected rate as reasonable 

facts available and have found none. 

Because we did not find evidence 

indicating that the margin used as facts 

available in this proceeding is not 

appropriate, we have determined that 

the the highest transaction–specific rate 

calculated for any mandatory 

respondent in this administrative 

review is appropriate as AFA and are 

assigning this rate to Doblertel, S.A. and 

Sociedad Atlantico Pacifico, S.A. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp by 

OceanInvest and Promarisco to the 

United States were made at less than 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10702 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

7Because OceanInvest’s sales in the home market 

did not meet the viability threshold, it was 

unnecessary to address whether a particular market 

situation existed with respect to such sales. 

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. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by OceanInvest and 

Promarisco 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 

Italy for OceanInvest and Spain for 

Promarisco 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 

OceanInvest and Promarisco 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 Promarisco’s U.S. 

sales of broken shrimp, we compared 

them to constructed value (CV), as 

Promarisco did not make any sales of 

broken shrimp in its comparison 

market. 

Export Price 

For all U.S. sales made by 

OceanInvest and Promarisco, we 

applied the 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. OceanInvest 

We based EP on FOB or delivered, 

duty–paid (DDP) prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments to the starting price for 

billing adjustments. We also made 

deductions to the starting price for 

demurrage expenses, foreign inland 

freight expenses, Ecuadorian brokerage 

and handling expenses, ocean freight 

expenses, U.S. customs duties 

(including merchandise processing and 

harbor maintenance fees), and U.S. 

brokerage and handling expenses, where 

appropriate, in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

OceanInvest reported certain price 

adjustments and demurrage expenses as 

direct selling expenses. We reclassified 

these items as billing adjustments and 

movement expenses, respectively. 

As noted in the sales verification 

report (see ‘‘Verification of the Sales 

Response of OceanInvest S.A. in the 

2004–2006 Antidumping 

Administrative Review of Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador,’’

Memorandum to the File dated January 

18, 2007 (OceanInvest SVR)) at page 18, 

OceanInvest inadvertently reported 

many adjustments for glazed sales on a 

glaze–inclusive basis rather than glaze–

exclusive basis. We recalculated the 

per–unit amounts to reflect a glaze–

exclusive basis using the methodology 

outlined in the verification report. 

Based on our sales verification 

findings, we made minor revisions to 

the movement expenses reported for a 

small number of U.S. sales. See 

Memorandum to the File entitled 

‘‘OceanInvest S.A., Preliminary Results 

Notes and Margin Calculation,’’ dated 

February 28, 2007 (OceanInvest 

Preliminary Results Memo). 

B. Promarisco 

We based EP on CIF or DDP prices to 

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States. We made deductions to 

the starting price for foreign inland 

freight expenses, ocean freight expenses, 

marine insurance expenses, U.S. 

customs duties (including merchandise 

processing and harbor maintenance 

fees), U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, and U.S. warehousing 

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. 

In the less–than-fair–value (LTFV) 

investigation segment of this 

proceeding, the Department determined 

that a particular market situation existed 

which rendered the Ecuadorian market 

inappropriate for purposes of 

determining NV for the three 

respondents in the LTFV investigation, 

including Promarisco. See 

Memorandum dated June 7, 2004, 

entitled ‘‘Home Market as Appropriate 

Comparison Market,’’ as included at 

Exhibit A–2 of Promarisco’s August 8, 

2006, section A Questionnaire response. 

Promarisco reported that the particular 

market situation still applies to its home 

market sales and there is no information 

on the record to suggest otherwise. 

Accordingly, although the aggregate 

volume of Promarisco’s 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, because of the particular 

market situation, we could not rely on 

Promarisco’s home market sales for 

determining NV. Therefore, we used 

Promarisco’s sales to Spain, 

Promarisco’s largest third country 

market, as the basis for comparison–

market sales. See Memorandum to 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, from The Team 

entitled ‘‘Selection of the Appropriate 

Third Country Market for Promarisco,’’

dated November 8, 2006, for a more 

detailed discussion of this issue. 

Furthermore, based on our analysis of 

OceanInvest’s questionnaire responses, 

we determined that OceanInvest’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.7 Therefore, with 

respect to OceanInvest, we used sales to 

Italy, which is OceanInvest’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. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10703 

8Where 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. 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. See, 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),8 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). 

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 

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. OceanInvest 

OceanInvest sold frozen warmwater 

shrimp to distributors and traders in the 

U.S. market, and distributors in the 

Italian market. OceanInvest reported 

that it made EP sales in the U.S. market 

through two channels of distribution: 

FOB sales, and DDP. We examined the 

selling activities performed for these 

channels, and found that OceanInvest 

performed the following selling 

functions for both channels: packing, 

order input/processing, direct sales 

personnel services, and claim services 

(i.e., billing adjustments). In addition, 

for DDP sales, OceanInvest made freight 

and delivery arrangements. These 

selling activities can be generally 

grouped into two core selling function 

categories for analysis: 1) sales and 

marketing (e.g., order input/processing, 

direct sales personnel services, claim 

services); and 2) freight and delivery. 

Accordingly, based on the core selling 

functions, we find that OceanInvest 

performed sales and marketing for all 

U.S. sales, and freight and delivery 

services as well for certain U.S. sales. 

We do not find that the provision of 

freight and delivery services 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 

U.S. market. 

With respect to the Italian market, 

OceanInvest reported one channel of 

distribution, FOB sales. We examined 

the selling activities performed for this 

channel, and found that OceanInvest 

performed the following selling 

functions: packing, order input/ 

processing, direct sales personnel 

services, payment of commissions, and 

claim services (i.e., billing adjustments). 

These selling activities can be generally 

grouped into one core selling function 

for analysis: sales and marketing. 

Accordingly, we find that OceanInvest 

performed the core selling function of 

sales and marketing for all customers in 

the Italian market. Because all sales in 

the Italian market are made through a 

single distribution channel, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the Italian market. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the comparison market LOT and found 

that, with the exception of freight and 

delivery services performed on some 

U.S. sales, and the payment of 

commissions on Italian sales, the core 

selling functions performed for U.S. and 

Italian market customers are virtually 

identical. Therefore, we determined that 

sales to the U.S. and Italian markets 

during the POR were made at the same 

LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment 

was warranted. 

2. Promarisco 

Promarisco made direct sales of 

frozen warmwater shrimp to retailers, 

food processors, restaurant chains, and 

distributors in the U.S. market, and food 

processors and distributors in the 

Spanish market. Promarisco reported 

that it made EP sales in the U.S. market 

on a CIF or DDP basis through one 

channel of distribution. We examined 

the selling activities performed for this 

channel, and found that Promarisco 

performed the following selling 

functions: sales forecasting, sales 

promotion, order input/processing, 

technical assistance, pay commissions, 

freight and delivery, and claim services. 

These selling activities can be generally 

grouped into two core selling function 

categories for analysis: 1) sales and 

marketing (e.g., order input/processing, 

sales promotion, claim services); and 2) 

freight and delivery. Accordingly, we 

find that Promarisco performed the core 

selling functions of sales and marketing, 

and freight and delivery for all 

customers in the U.S. market. Because 

all sales in the U.S. market are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to the Spanish market, 

Promarisco reported that it made sales 

on an FOB, C&F, or CIF basis through 

one channel of distribution. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for this channel, and found 

that Promarisco performed the following 

selling functions: sales forecasting, sales 

promotion, order input/processing, 

technical assistance, pay commissions, 

freight and delivery, and claim services. 

These selling activities can be generally 

grouped into two core selling function 

categories for analysis: 1) sales and 

marketing (e.g., order input/processing, 

sales promotion, claim services); and 2) 

freight and delivery. Accordingly, based 

on the core selling functions, we find 

that Promarisco performed sales and 

marketing for all Spanish sales, and 

freight and delivery services as well for 

certain Spanish sales. We do not find 

that the provision of freight and delivery 

services for some sales is sufficient to 

distinguish it as a separate LOT. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

Spanish market. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the comparison–market LOT and found 

that the core selling functions 

performed for U.S. and Spanish market 

customers are virtually identical. 

Therefore, we determined that sales to 

the U.S. and Spanish markets during the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10704 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

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 OceanInvest’s 

sales of frozen warmwater shrimp in the 

third–country market were made at 

prices below their cost of production 

(COP). Accordingly, pursuant to section 

773(b) of the Act, we initiated a sales–

below-cost investigation to determine 

whether OceanInvest’s sales were made 

at prices below their respective COPs. 

See OceanInvest 

COP Initiation Memo. 

In the LTFV investigation, the most 

recently completed segment of this 

proceeding as of April 7, 2006, the 

publication date of the initiation of this 

review, we found that Promarisco had 

made sales below the cost of 

production. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Ecuador, 69 FR 47091 (August 4, 2004); 

unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From Ecuador, 69 

FR 76913,(December 23, 2004), and 

LTFV Amended Final Determination 

and Order. Thus, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, there 

are reasonable grounds to believe or 

suspect that Promarisco made sales in 

the third–country market at prices 

below the cost of producing the 

merchandise in the current review 

period. Accordingly, we instructed 

Promarisco to respond to the section D 

(Cost of Production) questionnaire. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the 

respondents’ 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 

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. OceanInvest 

We made an adjustment to 

OceanInvest’s reported costs of 

manufacture to account for 

unreconciled costs. Our revision to 

OceanInvest’s COP data is discussed in 

the Memorandum from Laurens van 

Houten, Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - OceanInvest, 

S.A.,’’ dated February 28, 2007. 

b. Promarisco 

We recalculated Promarisco’s G0z7 A 

expense ratio to include research and 

development expenses. Our revision to 

Promarisco’s COP data are discussed in 

the Memorandum from Frederick W. 

Mines, Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Promarisco S.A.,’’

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 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 (inclusive of billing adjustments, 

where appropriate) were exclusive of 

any applicable movement charges, and 

direct and indirect selling expenses and 

packing expenses, revised where 

appropriate, as discussed below under 

the ‘‘Price–to-Price Comparisons’’

section. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

third country sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) or 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 

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 

OceanInvest’s and Promarisco’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 these sales and used 

the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

For those U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise for which there were no 

useable third country 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 

1. OceanInvest 

We based NV for OceanInvest on FOB 

prices to unaffiliated customers in Italy. 

We made adjustments, where 

appropriate, to the starting price for 

billing adjustments. We made 

deductions, where appropriate, from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight 

and Ecuadorian brokerage and handling 

expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act. 

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 circumstances 

of sale (COS) for imputed credit 

expenses, bank fees, testing fees, bill of 

lading fees, and international courier 

fees. As discussed above under ‘‘Export 

Price,’’ we recalculated the per–unit 

amounts for these expenses to reflect a 

glaze–exclusive basis. We also made 

adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses 

incurred on comparison–market or U.S. 

sales where commissions were granted 

on sales in one market but not the other. 

Specifically, as commissions were 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10705 

9This 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. 

granted in the Italian market but not in 

the U.S. market, we made an upward 

adjustment to NV for the lesser of 1) the 

amount of commission paid in the 

Italian market, or 2) the amount of 

indirect selling expenses incurred in the 

U.S. market. 

We also deducted comparison–market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

OceanInvest reported certain price 

adjustments relevant to Italian sales as 

direct selling expenses. We reclassified 

these items as billing adjustments. We 

also recalculated the imputed credit 

expense for both U.S. and Italian sales 

to account for these items. 

We recalculated the reported per–unit 

commission expenses applicable to 

Italian sales based on our verification 

findings. See OceanInvest SVR at page 

23 and OceanInvest Preliminary Results 

Memo. 

We recalculated indirect selling 

expenses to include the cost of a 

product sample. See OceanInvest 

Preliminary Results Memo. 

2. Promarisco 

We calculated NV based on CIF, C&F 

or FOB prices to unaffiliated customers 

in the Spanish market. We made 

adjustments, where appropriate, to the 

starting price for billing adjustments. 

We made deductions from the starting 

price for movement expenses, including 

inland freight, marine insurance, and 

international freight, under section 

773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

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 COS for 

imputed credit expenses. We also made 

adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses 

incurred on comparison–market or U.S. 

sales where commissions were granted 

on sales in one market but not the other. 

Specifically, where commissions were 

granted in the U.S. market but not in the 

comparison market, we made a 

downward adjustment to NV for the 

lesser of 1) the amount of commission 

paid in the U.S. market, or 2) the 

amount of indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the comparison market. If 

commissions were granted in the 

comparison market but not in the U.S. 

market, we made an upward adjustment 

to NV following the same methodology. 

We also deducted comparison market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

In response to the Department’s 

inquiry, Promarisco submitted a letter 

on February 14, 2007, explaining that 

three transactions reported in the 

Spanish sales data base with missing 

payment dates were actually free 

product samples. As this information 

was received too late for consideration 

in the preliminary results and did not 

include any supporting documentation, 

we have included these transactions in 

our calculation of NV and set the 

payment date equal to February 28, 

2007, the date of the preliminary results, 

for purposes of calculating imputed 

credit expenses. 

Promarisco reported in its December 

22, 2006, questionnaire response that it 

did not recalculate the imputed credit 

expense after revisions were made to the 

Spanish market sales file to include 

certain missing payment dates in its 

October 27, 2006, questionnaire 

response. Accordingly, we recalculated 

the imputed credit expense for the 

Spanish market sales to account for the 

revised payment dates, based on 

Promarisco’s methodology described in 

its response. 

Promarisco reported certain 

movement–related insurance expenses 

incurred on sales to Spain as direct 

selling expenses. We reclassified these 

expenses as movement expenses. In 

addition, we have corrected and 

recalculated these expenses and marine 

insurance expenses incurred on certain 

Spanish sales, in accordance with the 

information provided in Promarisco’s 

February 12, 2007, submission. 

We recalculated indirect selling 

expenses to include certain expenses 

Promarisco excluded from its indirect 

selling expense calculation. See 

Memorandum to the File entitled 

‘‘Promarisco, S.A. Preliminary Results 

Notes and Margin Calculation,’’ dated 

February 28, 2007. 

F. 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 

because there were no useable sales of 

a comparable product, 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 based on the methodology 

described in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section, above. We based 

SG&A and profit for each respondent on 

the actual amounts incurred and 

realized by the respondents 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 

differences in COS in accordance with 

section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410. For comparisons to EP, we 

made COS adjustments by deducting 

direct selling expenses incurred on 

comparison–market sales from, and 

adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, 

CV. 

Currency Conversion 

We did not make any currency 

conversions pursuant to section 773A of 

the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 because all 

sales and cost data for both respondents 

were reported in U.S. dollars. 

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 

OceanInvest, S.A. ......... 4.54 

Promarisco, S.A. ........... 1.02 

Review–Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies:9

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Agrol S.A. ..................... 2.25 

Camarones 

(Camarones Del Mar 

COBUS S.A.) ............ 2.25 

Comercializadora del 

Mar COMAR Cia. 

Ltda. .......................... 2.25 

Empacadora y 

Exportadora Calvi 

Cia. Ltda. ................... 2.25 

Emprede S.A. ............... 2.25 

Exportadora del Oceano 

Oceanexa C. A. ........ 2.25 

Fortumar Ecuador S.A. 2.25 

Gambas del Pacifico .... 2.25 

Hectorosa S.A. ............. 2.25 

Inepexa S.A. ................. 2.25 

Jorge Luis Benitez 

Lopez ........................ 2.25 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10706 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Luis Loaiza Alvarez ...... 2.25 

Mardex Cia. Ltda. ......... 2.25 

Marines C.A. ................. 2.25 

Pacfish, S.A. ................. 2.25 

PCC Congelados & 

Frescos SA ............... 2.25 

Pescazul S.A. ............... 2.25 

Productos Cultivados 

del Mar ‘‘Proculmar’’

Cia. Ltda. ................... 2.25 

Promarosa S.A. ............ 2.25 

AFA Rate Applicable to the Following 

Companies: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Doblertel S.A. ............... 48.61 

Sociedad Atlantico 

Pacifico, S.A. ............. 48.61 

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 case 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. 

Regarding OceanInvest, for those sales 

where it reported the entered value of 

its U.S. sales, we will calculate 

importer–specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the examined 

sales for that importer. For those sales 

where OceanInvest did not report the 

entered value of its 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. 

Regarding Promarisco, because it 

reported the entered value of all of its 

U.S. sales, we will calculate importer–

specific ad valorem duty assessment 

rates based on the ratio of the total 

amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the examined 

sales for that importer. 

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, a prior 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 3.58 

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 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10707 

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. E7–4295 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–337–806 

Certain Individually Quick Frozen Red 

Raspberries from Chile: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limit for 2005–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yasmin Nair or Nancy Decker, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–3813 or (202) 482–

0196, respectively. 

Statutory Time Limits 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Tariff Act 

of 1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

requires the Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) to issue the preliminary 

results of an administrative review 

within 245 days after the last day of the 

anniversary month of an order for which 

a review is requested and a final 

determination within 120 days after the 

date on which the preliminary results 

are published. If it is not practicable to 

complete the review within the time 

period, section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

allows the Department to extend these 

deadlines to a maximum of 365 days 

and 180 days, respectively. 

Background 

On August 30, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of initiation of administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on individually quick frozen red 

raspberries from Chile, covering the 

period July 1, 2005, through June 30, 

2006. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in 

Part, 71 FR 51573 (August 30, 2006). 

The preliminary results for this 

administrative review are currently due 

no later than April 2, 2007. 

Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results 

The Department requires additional 

time to review, analyze, and verify the 

sales and cost information submitted by 

the parties in this administrative review. 

Moreover, the Department requires 

additional time to issue supplemental 

questionnaires and fully analyze the 

responses. Thus, it is not practicable to 

complete this review within the original 

time limit (i.e., April 2, 2007). 

Therefore, the Department is extending 

the time limit for completion of the 

preliminary results to not later than July 

31, 2007, in accordance with section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: March 05, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4318 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–357–809] 

Small Diameter Seamless Carbon and 

Alloy Steel Standard, Line and 

Pressure Pipe from Argentina: Notice 

of Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 29, 2006, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce (‘‘the 

Department’’) published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on small 

diameter seamless carbon and alloy 

steel standard, line and pressure pipe 

(‘‘seamless line and pressure pipe’’) 

from Argentina. The review covers one 

manufacturer/exporter, Siderca S.A.I.C. 

(‘‘Siderca’’). The period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) is August 1, 2005, through July 

31, 2006. Following the receipt of a 

certification of no shipments by Siderca, 

we notified the domestic interested 

party of the Department’s intent to 

rescind this review and provided an 

opportunity to comment on the 

rescission. We received no comments. 

Therefore, we are rescinding this 

administrative review. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Helen Kramer or Angelica Mendoza, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–0405 and (202) 

482–3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 1, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on seamless 

line and pressure pipe from Argentina 

for the period August 1, 2005, through 

July 31, 2006. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 43441 (August 1, 2006). On August 

31, 2006, United States Steel 

Corporation (‘‘U.S. Steel’’), a domestic 

producer of the subject merchandise, 

made a timely request that the 

Department conduct an administrative 

review of Siderca. On September 29, 

2006, in accordance with section 751(a) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), the Department published 

in the Federal Register a notice of 

initiation of this antidumping duty 

administrative review. See Notice of 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 71 FR 57465 (September 29, 

2006). On October 4, 2006, the 

Department issued its antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Siderca. On October 18, 

2006, Siderca submitted a letter to the 

Department, certifying that the company 

made no shipments or entries for 

consumption in the United States of the 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

Siderca also certified that the company’s 

U.S. affiliate, Tenaris Global Services 

U.S.A. Corporation, also did not sell, 

enter, or import subject merchandise for 

consumption into the United States 

during the POR. 

Scope of the Order 

The antidumping duty order on 

imports from Argentina covers small 

diameter seamless carbon and alloy 

standard, line, and pressure pipes 

(‘‘seamless pipes’’) produced to the 

American Standard for Testing and 

Materials (‘‘ASTM’’) standards A–335, 

A–106, A–53, and American Petroleum 

Institute (‘‘API’’) standard API 5L 

specifications and meeting the physical 

parameters described below, regardless 

of application. The scope of this order 

also includes all products used in 

standard, line, or pressure pipe 

applications and meeting the physical 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES