10658 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

1This figure does not include those companies 

for which the Department is preliminarily 

rescinding the administrative review. 

2The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee. 

3As discussed below, for certain of these 

companies, the petitioner subsequently withdrew 

its request for review. 

PRC exporters that supplied that nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

These administrative and new shipper 

reviews and notice are in accordance 

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

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213 

and 351.214. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

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

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–840] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from India: Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India 

with respect to 70 companies.1 The 

respondents which the Department 

selected for individual review are Devi 

Marine Food Exports Private Limited 

(DMF), Kader Investment and Trading 

Company Private Limited, Premier 

Marine Products, Kader Exports Private 

Limited (KEPL), Universal Cold Storage 

Private Limited (UCS), and Liberty 

Frozen Foods Private Limited 

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

Falcon Marine Exports Limited (Falcon), 

and Hindustan Lever Limited (HLL). 

The respondents which were not 

selected for individual review are listed 

in the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’

section of this notice. This is the first 

administrative review of this order. The 

period of review (POR) is August 4, 

2004, through January 31, 2006. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty 

Group have been made below normal 

value (NV). In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual review, we have 

preliminarily determined a weighted–

average margin for those companies that 

were not selected for individual review 

but were responsive to the Department’s 

requests for information. For those 

companies which were not responsive 

to the Department’s requests for 

information, we have preliminarily 

assigned to them a margin based on 

adverse facts available (AFA). 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Jill Pollack, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration–Room B099, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–3874 or (202) 482–4593, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

warmwater shrimp from India. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India, 

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

Order). Subsequently, on February 1, 

2006, the Department published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India for 

the period August 4, 2004, through 

January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 5239 (Feb. 1, 2006). Between 

February 23 and 28, 2006, the 

Department received timely requests 

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

an administrative review of the sales of 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 

the following producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise: Amalgam Foods & 

Beverages Limted, Ananda Aqua 

Exports Private Limited, Asvini Exports, 

Asvini Fisheries Limited, Avanti Feeds 

Limted, Devi Fisheries Limited, Devi 

Seafoods Limited, Falcon, Five Star 

Marine Exports Private Limited, GVR 

Exports Pvt. Ltd., HLL, Jaya Lakshmi 

Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd., Jayalakshmi Sea 

Foods Private Limited, K.R.M. Marine 

Exports, the Liberty Group, Magnum 

Estate Private Limited, Nekkanti Sea 

Foods Limited, Sagar Grandhi Exports 

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

Sandhya Marines Limited, Satya 

Seafoods Private Limited, Selvam 

Exports Private Limited, Star Agro 

Marine Exports Private Limited, 

Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited, 

Veejay Impex, Vinner Marine, and 

Wellcome Fisheries Limited. Also on 

February 28, 2006, the petitioner2

submitted a letter timely requesting that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of the sales of 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp made 

by numerous companies during the 

POR, pursuant to section 751(a) of the 

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

and in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1). 

On April 7, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review for 347 

companies and requested that each 

provide data on the quantity and value 

(Q&V) of its exports of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR for mandatory respondent 

selection purposes. These companies 

are listed in the Department’s notice of 

initiation. See Notice of Initiation of 

Administrative Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India and Thailand, 71 FR 

17819 (Apr. 7, 2006) (Notice of 

Initiation). 

During the period April 24 through 

June 12, 2006, we received responses to 

the Department’s Q&V questionnaire 

from 59 companies. We were unable to 

locate 29 companies, and we did not 

receive responses to this questionnaire 

from the remaining companies.3 For 

further discussion, see the ‘‘Application 

of Facts Available’’ section of this 

notice. 

One of the companies that responded 

to our Q&V questionnaire, Coastal 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10659 

Trawlers Ltd. (Coastal Trawlers), 

notified us that it had changed its name 

during the POR, and is now doing 

business under the name Coastal 

Corporation Ltd. (Coastal Corp.). As a 

result, we solicited information on this 

change from Coastal Corp., which the 

company supplied in June 2006. After 

analyzing this information, we 

preliminarily find that Coastal Corp. is 

the successor–in-interest to Coastal 

Trawlers. For further discussion, see the 

‘‘Successor–in-Interest’’ section of this 

notice, below. 

Based upon our consideration of the 

responses received to the Q&V 

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 

was requested. As a result, on July 11, 

2006, we selected the three largest 

producers/exporters of certain frozen 

warmwater shrimp from India during 

the POR (i.e., Falcon, HLL, and the 

Liberty Group) as the mandatory 

respondents in this proceeding. See the 

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 India: Selection of 

Respondents,’’ dated July 11, 2006. On 

this same date, we issued the 

antidumping questionnaire to Falcon, 

HLL, and the Liberty Group. 

On July 21, 2006, we published a 

notice rescinding the administrative 

review with respect to 268 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 India; 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 41419 

(July 21, 2006) (Notice of Rescission). 

See also the Memorandum to the file 

from Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, 

‘‘Intent to Rescind in Part the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from India,’’ dated June 22, 2006. 

On August 8, 2006, we received 

responses to section A of the 

questionnaire from Falcon, HLL, and the 

Liberty Group. 

On August 11, 2006, the petitioner 

submitted comments regarding third 

country market selection and the 

possible existence of a ‘‘particular 

market situation’’ with respect to both 

Falcon and HLL. 

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 (Aug. 25, 

2006). 

We issued supplemental section A 

questionnaires to HLL, Falcon, and the 

Liberty Group on August 31, 2006. 

We received responses to sections B 

and C of the questionnaire from Falcon 

and HLL on September 6, 2006, and 

from the Liberty Group on September 7, 

2006. Also on September 7, 2006, HLL 

submitted a response to section D of the 

questionnaire. 

On September 14, 2006, we published 

a notice amending the partial rescission 

of the administrative review to correct a 

typographical error. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from India; 

Corrected Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 54268 (Sept. 14, 2006). 

The petitioner requested that the 

Department initiate a sales–below-cost 

investigation of the Liberty Group on 

September 20, 2006, and of HLL on 

September 21, 2006. 

Also on September 21, 2006, we 

issued a supplemental questionnaire 

covering sections A through C to the 

Liberty Group and we received a 

response to the supplemental section A 

questionnaire from HLL. 

We received responses to the 

supplemental section A questionnaires 

from Falcon on September 22, 2006, and 

from the Liberty Group on September 

25, 2006. Also on September 25, 2006, 

we issued a supplemental questionnaire 

covering sections B and C to Falcon. 

On September 27, 2006, the petitioner 

requested that the Department initiate a 

sales–below-cost investigation of 

Falcon, and the petitioner submitted 

comments on the selection of the 

appropriate third country comparison 

markets for Falcon and HLL. 

On October 4, 2006, we initiated a 

sales–below-cost investigation of the 

Liberty Group. See the Memorandum to 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, from The Team 

entitled, ‘‘Petitioners’ Allegation of 

Sales Below the Cost of Production for 

the Liberty Group Frozen Foods,’’ dated 

October 4, 2006 (Sales–Below-Cost–

Memo for the Liberty Group). 

On October 5, 2006, we determined 

that Japan constitutes the appropriate 

third country comparison market for 

both Falcon and the Liberty Group, and 

that France constitutes the appropriate 

third country comparison market for 

HLL. See the Memorandum to James 

Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 

Operations, from The Team entitled, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India - Selection of the 

Appropriate Third Country Markets,’’

dated October 5, 2006 (Selection of 

Third County Markets Memo). See also 

the ‘‘Home Market Viability and 

Selection of Comparison Markets’’

section of this notice, below, for further 

discussion. Accordingly, on October 5, 

2006, we requested that Falcon and HLL 

resubmit their responses to section B of 

the Department’s questionnaire to report 

sales to Japan and France, respectively. 

Additionally, on October 5, 2006, we 

issued a supplemental section C 

questionnaire to HLL. 

On October 17, 2006, Falcon 

submitted its supplemental 

questionnaire response covering 

sections A through C. On October 20, 

2006, Falcon submitted a revised 

section B questionnaire response 

reporting sales to Japan. Also on 

October 20, 2006, Liberty submitted its 

supplemental questionnaire response 

covering sections A through C. On 

October 25, 2006, HLL submitted both a 

revised section B questionnaire 

response reporting sales to France and 

a response to the supplemental section 

C questionnaire. 

On November 3, 2006, we determined 

that the Department’s finding in the 

less–than-fair- value (LTFV) 

investigation, that HLL made 

comparison market sales below the cost 

of production and that such sales were 

disregarded, provides sufficient grounds 

to automatically initiate a sales–belowcost investigation for HLL in this 

segment of the proceeding. See the 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from The Team entitled, ‘‘2004–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India - Cost Allegation for 

Hindustan Lever Limited,’’ dated 

November 3, 2006 (Sales–Below-Cost 

Memo for HLL). 

On November 7, 2006, the Liberty 

Group submitted a response to section 

D of the questionnaire. Also on 

November 7, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental section D questionnaire to 

HLL. 

On November 13, 2006, we initiated 

a sales–below-cost investigation for 

Falcon. See the Memorandum to James 

Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 

Operations, from The Team entitled, 

‘‘Petitioners’ Allegation of Sales Below 

the Cost of Production for Falcon 

Marine Exports Limited,’’ dated 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10660 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

November 13, 2006 (Sales–Below-Cost–

Memo for Falcon). 

On November 29, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental section D questionnaire to 

the Liberty Group. 

On December 5, 2006, we received 

HLL’s response to the supplemental 

section D questionnaire. 

On December 12 and 20, 2006, 

respectively, Falcon and the Liberty 

Group responded to section D of the 

questionnaire. On December 22, 26, and 

28, 2006, respectively, we issued 

supplemental section D questionnaires 

to Falcon, the Liberty Group, and HLL. 

We received responses to these 

questionnaires from Falcon and the 

Liberty Group on January 11, 2007, and 

from HLL on January 22, 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 (Jan. 23, 2007). 

We issued an additional section D 

supplemental questionnaire to HLL on 

February 2, 2007, and to the Liberty 

Group on February 8, 2007. We received 

responses to these questionnaires on 

February 9 and 15, 2007, respectively. 

Sales and cost verifications were 

conducted at Falcon and the Liberty 

Group in January and February 2007. 

The sales verification reports for Falcon 

and the Liberty Group were issued in 

February 2007. 

On February 8, 2007, we issued an 

additional supplemental questionnaire 

to the Liberty Group regarding its 

relationship with Liberty Oil Mills 

Limited (LOML). 

On February 12, 2007, Falcon 

submitted a revised cost database which 

incorporated certain minor corrections 

to its data discovered at verification. 

On February 15, 2007, we received 

the Liberty Group’s response to the 

February 8, 2007, supplemental 

questionnaire. 

On February 23 and 26, 2007, 

respectively, the Liberty Group and 

Falcon submitted revised sales 

databases which incorporated certain 

minor corrections to these companies’

data discovered at verification. 

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 

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 (HTSUS 

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 

(HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTSUS 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. 

Successor–in-Interest 

As noted above, in April 2006, Coastal 

Trawlers informed the Department that 

it is now doing business under the name 

Coastal Corp. As a result, on June 1, 

2006, we requested that Coastal Corp. 

address the following four factors with 

respect to this change in name in order 

to determine whether Coastal Corp. is 

the successor–in-interest to Coastal 

Trawlers: management, production 

facilities for the subject merchandise, 

supplier relationships, and customer 

base. 

On June 15, 2006, Coastal Corp. 

responded to the Department’s request. 

In this submission, Coastal Corp. stated 

that, in February 2005, Coastal Trawlers 

changed its name to Coastal Corp., and 

that the name change had no effect on 

the core activity of the company. 

According to Coastal Corp., there were 

no changes to Coastal Trawlers’

management, production facilities for 

the subject merchandise, supplier 

relationships, or customer base as a 

result of the change in corporate 

structure. Specifically, Coastal Corp. 

maintains that the only change in 

production was that the company 

ceased its deep sea fishing/trawler 

activities. 

Based on our analysis of Coastal 

Corp.’s June 15, 2006, submission, we 

preliminarily find that Coastal Trawlers’

organizational structure, management, 

production facilities, supplier 

relationships, and customers have 

remained essentially unchanged. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10661 

5These companies are: Amison Foods Ltd., 

Amison Seafoods Ltd., Cherukattu Industries 

(Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA 

& R Enterprises, InterSea Exports Corporation, 

Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, National Steel & 

Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine Foods, R F. 

Exports, and Vaibhav Sea Foods. 

Further, we preliminarily find that 

Coastal Corp. operates as the same 

business entity as Coastal Trawlers with 

respect to the production and sale of 

shrimp. Thus, we preliminarily find that 

Coastal Corp. is the successor–ininterest to Coastal Trawlers, and, as a 

consequence, its exports of shrimp are 

subject to this proceeding. We note that 

we intend to solicit further supporting 

documentation from Coastal Corp. 

regarding its assertions, and we will 

make a final finding regarding this 

successor–in-interest determination no 

later than the date of the final results. 

For further discussion, see the 

Memorandum to James Maeder, Office 

Director, from Nichole Zink, Analyst, 

entitled, ‘‘Successor–In-Interest 

Determination for Coastal Trawlers Ltd. 

and Coastal Corporation Ltd. in the 

2004–2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,’’

dated February 28, 2007. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

Eight of the companies that responded 

to the Department’s Q&V questionnaire 

stated that they had no shipments/ 

entries of subject merchandise into the 

United States during the POR. However, 

based on information obtained from 

CBP, it appeared that these eight 

companies did, in fact, have shipments 

or entries of subject merchandise 

entered into the United States during 

the POR. See the Memorandum to The 

File from Jill Pollack entitled, ‘‘2004–

2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India: Entry Documents 

from U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP),’’ dated July 28, 2006. 

Based on the CBP information, we 

requested that each of these eight 

companies explain the entries in 

question. In response to the 

Department’s solicitation, only four of 

the eight companies, Balaji Seafoods 

Exports (India) Ltd., Innovative Foods 

Limited, Sharat Industries Limited, and 

Triveni Fisheries Pvt. Ltd., 

demonstrated that the entries at issue 

were not reportable transactions because 

they were either: 1) a non–paid sample; 

or 2) reported by another company in its 

Q&V response. Therefore, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), and 

consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we are preliminarily 

rescinding our review with respect to 

Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd., 

Innovative Foods Limited, Sharat 

Industries Limited, and Triveni 

Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. See, e.g., Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars From 

Turkey; Final Results, Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, and Determination To 

Revoke in Part, 70 FR 67665, 67666 

(Nov. 8, 2005). 

Three of the remaining four exporter/ 

producers, Baby Marine (Eastern) 

Exports, Baby Marine Exports, and Baby 

Marine Products (collectively, ‘‘the Baby 

Marine Group’’), failed to respond to the 

Department’s request for additional 

information. The remaining company, 

LOML, is an affiliate of the Liberty 

Group. Therefore, we are not rescinding 

the administrative review with respect 

to these companies. For further 

information, see the ‘‘Application of 

Facts Available’’ and ‘‘Collapsing the 

Liberty Group and LOML’’ sections of 

this notice. 

Collapsing the Liberty Group and 

LOML 

The Liberty Group has an affiliate, 

LOML, which exported some of the 

shrimp produced by the Liberty Group 

during the POR. In its August 9, 2006, 

section A response, as well as its 

February 15, 2007, response and at 

verification, the Liberty Group provided 

information regarding the relationship 

between these entities during the POR. 

After an analysis of this information, we 

preliminarily determine that, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is 

appropriate to collapse these entities for 

purposes of this review because: 1) 

certain of the directors of LOML are also 

directors of Liberty Group companies, 

and the family which owns the Liberty 

Group owns a majority of the shares in 

LOML; 2) LOML exported shrimp 

produced by the Liberty Group to the 

United States during the POR; and 3) 

the operations of LOML and the Liberty 

Group are intertwined. Thus, there is 

significant potential for manipulation of 

price if LOML does not receive the same 

antidumping duty rate as the Liberty 

Group. For further discussion, see the 

Memorandum from Elizabeth Eastwood, 

Senior Analyst, Office 2, to James 

Maeder, Director, Office 2, entitled, 

‘‘Whether to Collapse Liberty Oil Mills 

Limited with the Liberty Group in the 

2004–2006 Administrative Review on 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

India,’’ dated February 28, 2007. 

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 Q&V questionnaire for 

purposes of mandatory respondent 

selection. The original deadline to file a 

response was April 28, 2006. Of the 347 

companies initially subject to review, 

213 companies did not respond to the 

Department’s initial requests for 

information. Subsequently, in May 

2006, the Department issued letters to 

these companies affording them a 

second opportunity to submit a 

response to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire. However, after rescinding 

this administrative review for 268 

companies in July 2006, there were still 

several companies which failed to 

respond to the Department’s second 

request for Q&V data.5 On February 6, 

2007, the Department placed 

documentation on the record confirming 

delivery of the questionnaires to each of 

these companies. See the Memorandum 

to the File from Elizabeth Eastwood 

entitled, ‘‘Placing Delivery Information 

on the Record of the 2004–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India,’’ dated February 6, 

2007. By failing to respond to the 

Department’s Q&V 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 companies did not 

respond to the Department’s 

questionnaire, the Department 

preliminarily finds that the use of total 

facts available is warranted. 

Furthermore, three additional 

companies, all within the Baby Marine 

Group, 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 the Baby Marine Group’s 

claim with CBP, we requested further 

information/clarification from these 

exporters. However, the Baby Marine 

Group failed to provide the requested 

information. Finally, an additional 

exporter, Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, 

failed to properly file its Q&V response 

with the Department because it did not 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10662 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

submit a company official certification 

for its Q&V information. Although the 

Department afforded this exporter an 

opportunity to correct the procedural 

deficiencies in its response, it failed to 

do so. By failing to respond to the 

Department’s requests, 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 for the Baby 

Marine Group and Kadalkanny Frozen 

Foods 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 

(Sept. 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 (Aug. 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 

Amison Foods Ltd., Amison Seafoods 

Ltd., the Baby Marine Group, 

Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div), 

Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd, HA & R 

Enterprises, InterSea Exports 

Corporation, Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, 

Lotus Sea Farms, National Steel, 

National Steel & Agro Ind, Nsil Exports, 

Premier Marine Foods, R F. Exports, and 

Vaibhav Sea Foods did not act to the 

best of their abilities in this proceeding, 

within the meaning of section 776(b) of 

the Act, because they could have 

responded to the Department’s requests 

for information, but failed to do so. 

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 

(Nov. 7, 2006). 

In order to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

cooperation, we have preliminarily 

assigned a rate of 82.3 percent, which is 

the lowest rate alleged in the petition (as 

adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV 

investigation). 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, 3880 (Jan. 27, 

2004) (LTFV Notice of Initiation). 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 the petition 

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 margins in the 

petition, we compared them to the 

transaction–specific rates calculated for 

each respondent in this review. We note 

that we are unable to corroborate the 

highest rate alleged in the petition (as 

adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV 

investigation) using the data of other 

respondents, as it is significantly higher 

than the highest non–aberrational 

transaction–specific rate calculated for 

any respondent in this review. However, 

we find that the lowest rate alleged in 

the petition (as adjusted at the initiation 

of the LTFV investigation), 82.30 

percent, is reliable and relevant because 

it is similar to several 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 82.3 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). Therefore, we 

examined whether any information on 

the record would discredit the selected 

rate as reasonable facts available. We 

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 

is similar to the range of transactions–

specific margins for the mandatory 

respondents, we have preliminarily 

determined that the 82.3 percent 

margin, as alleged in the petition and 

adjusted at the initiation of the LTFV 

investigation, is appropriate as AFA. We 

are assigning this rate to Amison Foods 

Ltd., Amison Seafoods Ltd., the Baby 

Marine Group, Cherukattu Industries 

(Marine Div), Global Sea Foods & Hotels 

Ltd, HA & R Enterprises, InterSea 

Exports Corporation, Kadalkanny 

Frozen Foods, Lotus Sea Farms, 

National Steel, National Steel & Agro 

Ind, Nsil Exports, Premier Marine 

Foods, R F. Exports, and Vaibhav Sea 

Foods. For company–specific 

information used to corroborate this 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10663 

6Where 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 

(G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. 

rate, see the Memorandum to the File 

from Elizabeth Eastwood, Senior 

Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

entitled ‘‘Corroboration of Adverse Facts 

Available Rate for the Preliminary 

Results in the 2004–2006 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India,’’

dated February 28, 2007. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp by Falcon, 

HLL, and the Liberty Group 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. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Falcon, HLL, and the 

Liberty Group 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 of 

non–broken shrimp to sales of non–

broken shrimp made in Japan (for 

Falcon and the Liberty Group) and 

France (for HLL) within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

to the month of the first U.S. sale until 

two months after the last U.S. sale. 

Where there were no non–broken 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 Falcon, HLL, 

and the Liberty Group 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. 

Export Price 

For all U.S. sales made by Falcon, 

HLL, and the Liberty Group, 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. Falcon 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for cold storage expenses, 

inland freight expenses, wharfage 

charges, loading expenses, inspection 

fees, other miscellaneous shipment 

charges, foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses, international freight expenses, 

U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage 

and handling expenses, where 

appropriate, in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We also made 

deductions for export taxes in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(B) of 

the Act. 

B. HLL 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for inland freight 

expenses, port dues, terminal handling 

charges, other shipment expenses, 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses, international freight expenses, 

marine insurance, U.S. customs duties, 

and U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, where appropriate, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act. We also made deductions for 

export taxes in accordance with section 

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

C. The Liberty Group 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for billing adjustments. We 

made deductions from the starting price 

for cold storage charges, inland freight 

expenses, other shipment and 

movement expenses, foreign brokerage 

and handling expenses, shipment 

related expenses, international freight 

expenses, terminal handling charges, 

U.S. customs duties, and U.S. brokerage 

and handling expenses, where 

appropriate, in accordance with section 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. We also made 

deductions for export taxes, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(B) 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. 

We determined that aggregate volume 

of home market sales of the foreign like 

product for Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty 

Group was insufficient to permit a 

proper comparison with U.S. sales of 

the subject merchandise. Therefore, 

with respect to Falcon and the Liberty 

Group, we used sales to Japan, and, with 

respect to HLL, we used sales to France 

as the basis for comparison–market sales 

in accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404 because, 

among other things, sales of foreign like 

product in these third country markets 

were the most similar to the subject 

merchandise. See the Selection of Third 

Country Markets Memo for further 

discussion. 

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 (Nov. 19, 1997) 

(Plate from South Africa). In order to 

determine whether the comparison 

market 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10664 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

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. Falcon 

Falcon reported that it made EP sales 

in the U.S. market to trading companies 

and distributors. Because Falcon 

reported no difference in the selling 

activities it performed for these two 

customer categories, we find that there 

is only one channel of distribution for 

Falcon’s EP sales. We examined the 

selling activities performed for this 

channel and found that Falcon 

performed the following selling 

functions: 1) customer contact; 2) price 

negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) 

invoice issuance; 5) arranging for freight 

and the provision of customs clearance/ 

brokerage services; 6) cold storage and 

inventory maintenance; 7) quality 

assurance related activities; 8) 

commission payments; 9) payment 

receipt; and 10) packaging services. 

These selling activities can be generally 

grouped into four core selling function 

categories for analysis: 1) sales and 

marketing; 2) freight and delivery; 3) 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and, 4) warranty and 

technical support. Accordingly, based 

on the core selling functions, we find 

that Falcon performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery services, 

and inventory maintenance and 

warehousing 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 third country 

market, Falcon reported that it made 

sales to trading companies. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for third country sales, and 

found that Falcon performed the 

following selling functions: 1) customer 

contact; 2) price negotiation; 3) order 

processing; 4) invoice issuance; 5) 

arranging for freight and the provision 

of customs clearance/brokerage services; 

6) cold storage and inventory 

maintenance; 7) quality assurance 

related activities; 8) commission 

payments; 9) payment receipt; and 10) 

packaging services. Accordingly, based 

on the core selling functions, we find 

that Falcon performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery services, 

and inventory maintenance and 

warehousing for third country sales. 

Because all third country sales are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the third country market for 

Falcon. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the third country market LOT and found 

that the core selling functions 

performed for U.S. and third country 

market customers do not differ. 

Therefore, we determined that sales to 

the U.S. and third country markets 

during the POR were made at the same 

LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment 

was warranted. 

2. HLL 

HLL reported that it made EP sales in 

the U.S. market to distributors. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for this channel and found 

that HLL performed the following 

selling functions: 1) customer contact; 2) 

price negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) 

production scheduling; 5) arranging for 

freight and the provision of customs 

clearance/brokerage services; 6) quality 

assurance related activities; 7) arranging 

for a refrigerated container; and 8) 

payment receipt. Accordingly, based on 

the core selling functions noted above, 

we find that HLL performed sales and 

marketing and freight and delivery 

services 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 third country 

market, HLL reported that it also made 

sales only to distributors. We examined 

the selling activities performed for third 

country sales and found that HLL 

performed the following selling 

functions: 1) customer contact; 2) price 

negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) 

production scheduling; 5) arranging for 

freight and the provision of customs 

clearance/brokerage services; 6) quality 

assurance related activities; 7) arranging 

for a refrigerated container; and 8) 

payment receipt. Accordingly, based on 

the core selling functions, we find that 

HLL performed sales and marketing and 

freight and delivery services for third 

country sales. Because all third country 

sales are made through a single 

distribution channel, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

third country market for HLL. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the third country market LOT and found 

that the core selling functions 

performed for U.S. and third country 

market customers do not differ. 

Therefore, we determined that sales to 

the U.S. and third country markets 

during the POR were made at the same 

LOT, and as a result, no LOT adjustment 

was warranted. 

3. The Liberty Group 

The Liberty Group reported that it 

made EP sales in the U.S. market to 

trading companies. We examined the 

selling activities performed for this 

channel and found that the Liberty 

Group performed the following selling 

functions: 1) customer contact; 2) price 

negotiation; 3) order processing; 4) 

invoice issuance; 5) arranging for freight 

and the provision of customs clearance/ 

brokerage services; 6) cold storage and 

inventory maintenance; 7) quality 

assurance related activities; 8) 

commission payments; 9) payment 

receipt; and 10) packaging services. 

Accordingly, based on the core selling 

functions noted above, we find that the 

Liberty Group performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery services, 

and inventory maintenance and 

warehousing 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 third country 

market, the Liberty Group reported that 

it made sales to trading companies. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for third country sales, and 

found that the Liberty Group performed 

the following selling functions: 1) 

customer contact; 2) price negotiation; 

3) order processing; 4) invoice issuance; 

5) arranging for freight and the 

provision of customs clearance/ 

brokerage services; 6) cold storage and 

inventory maintenance; 7) quality 

assurance related activities; 8) 

commission payments; 9) payment 

receipt; and 10) packaging services. 

Accordingly, based on the core selling 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10665 

functions, we find that the Liberty 

Group performed sales and marketing, 

freight and delivery services, and 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing for third country sales. 

Because all third country sales are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the third country market for 

the Liberty Group. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the third country market LOT and found 

that the core selling functions 

performed for U.S. and third country 

market customers do not differ. 

Therefore, we determined that sales to 

the U.S. and third country 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 Falcon and the 

Liberty Group’s sales of frozen 

warmwater shrimp in the third country 

comparison markets were made at 

prices below their cost of production 

(COP). Accordingly, pursuant to section 

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

below-cost investigations to determine 

whether Falcon’s and the Liberty 

Group’s sales were made at prices below 

their respective COPs. See the Sales–

Below-Cost Memo for the Liberty Group 

and the Sales–Below-Cost Memo for 

Falcon. 

Regarding HLL, we found that HLL 

had made sales below the COP in the 

LTFV investigation, the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding as 

of the date the questionnaire was issued 

in this review, and such sales were 

disregarded. See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Postponement of Final 

Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from India, 

69 FR 47111, 47116–17 (Aug. 4, 2004) 

(LTFV Preliminary Determination); 

unchanged in the Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From India, 

69 FR 76916 (Dec. 23, 2004) (LTFV Final 

Determination). Thus, in accordance 

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

there are reasonable grounds to believe 

or suspect that HLL made sales in the 

third country market at prices below the 

cost of producing the merchandise in 

the current review period. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the 

respondents’ COPs based on the sum of 

their costs of materials and conversion 

for the foreign like product, plus 

amounts for 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 recently submitted cost database 

for the COP calculation, except for the 

following instances: 

a. Falcon 

1. Falcon did not provide the 

Department with cost data for a 

small number of products sold in 

the comparison market during the 

window periods. Thus, as neutral 

facts available, we assigned these 

products the cost of the most 

similar product reported in the cost 

database. 

2. Falcon adjusted its standard cost of 

raw shrimp purchased for each 

count size to the actual cost of raw 

shrimp by applying a variance (i.e., 

the difference between the total 

standard costs and total actual 

costs). In calculating the variance, 

Falcon multiplied its standard raw 

material cost for each count size by 

the corresponding production 

quantity, including glaze, and 

compared the resulting total sum to 

the raw material costs in its 

financial records. We recalculated 

the variance using production 

quantities that were glaze–exclusive 

and applied the resulting adjusted 

variance to the standard cost of raw 

shrimp purchased for each count 

size. 

3. We revised Falcon’s raw shrimp 

cost by reallocating the costs from 

Falcon’s shrimp farms only to those 

species and count sizes that could 

have been raised on the farms. 

4. We revised the costs for packaging, 

labor, variable overhead, and fixed 

overhead (FOH) to base them on 

production quantities that were 

glaze–exclusive. We also revised 

FOH to allocate depreciation 

expenses to block frozen, 

individually quick frozen, and 

cooked products. 

5. We revised the reported G&A 

expense ratio by reclassifying 

certain expenses from the cost of 

goods sold to G&A expenses. 

6. We revised the net financial 

expense ratio by excluding the 

deduction for the profit on the sale 

of securities, and only including a 

deduction for interest income from 

short–term sources. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the Memorandum from 

Michael P. Harrison, Accountant, to 

Neal Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, entitled, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Adjustments for the Preliminary Results 

- Falcon Marine Exports,’’ dated 

February 28, 2007. 

b. HLL 

1. HLL did not provide the 

Department with cost data for a 

small number of products sold in 

the comparison market during the 

window periods. Thus, as neutral 

facts available, we assigned these 

products the cost of the most 

similar product reported in the cost 

database. 

2. We adjusted HLL’s reported raw 

shrimp consumption cost to 

account for an understatement. 

3. We revised HLL’s reported G&A 

expense ratio to include in the 

numerator certain items related to 

research and development, supply 

support and chain management, 

and restructuring costs. Moreover, 

we included the surplus of fixed 

assets sold and miscellaneous 

income as offsets to the G&A 

expenses. In addition, we excluded 

from the cost of sales, used as the 

denominator in calculating the G&A 

expense ratio, excise duties and 

packing material costs, and 

included the 2005 fiscal year 

increase in finished goods 

inventory. 

4. We revised the net financial 

expenses to include pension costs 

and similar obligations. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the Memorandum from 

Sheikh Hannan, Accountant, to Neal 

Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 

entitled, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Hindustan Lever 

Limited,’’ dated February 28, 2007. 

c. The Liberty Group 

1. We revised the cost data reported 

for all Liberty Group companies to 

account for minor corrections found 

during the cost verification. 

2. We revised DMF’s shrimp direct 

material costs to exclude certain 

by–product revenues. 

3. We revised DMF’s inner packing 

costs to exclude the revenue related 

to the sale of outer packing 

materials. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10666 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

4. We revised KEPL’s variable 

overhead costs to exclude 

premiums paid on duty export 

passbook benefits. 

5. We revised the application of the 

G&A expense ratio from a single 

weighted–average rate applied to all 

Liberty Group companies to 

applying each Liberty Group 

entity’s specific G&A expense ratio 

to its specific cost of manufacture. 

We continued to allocate certain 

G&A expenses to all Liberty Group 

companies. We revised each Liberty 

Group company’s costs of sales, 

used as the denominator in 

calculating the G&A expense ratio, 

to include the change in finished 

goods inventory. We reclassified 

certain expenses for DMF from 

production to G&A. Finally, we 

included certain expenses related to 

the loss on a sale of a fixed asset in 

the calculation of PMP’s G&A 

expenses. 

6. The Liberty Group does not prepare 

consolidated financial statements in 

the normal course of business. 

Therefore, we revised the 

application of the financial expense 

ratio by applying each Liberty 

Group company’s specific financial 

expense ratio to its specific cost of 

manufacture. We also revised each 

Liberty Group company’s costs of 

sales, used as the denominator in 

calculating the financial expense 

ratio, to include the change in 

finished goods inventory. Finally, 

we included certain bank charges in 

each entity’s financial expenses. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the Memorandum from 

Mark Todd, Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Liberty,’’ 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 

prices 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, rebates, direct and 

indirect selling expenses and packing 

expenses, revised where appropriate, as 

discussed below under the ‘‘Price–toPrice 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 when: 

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 products, 

more than 20 percent of Falcon’s, HLL’s, 

and the Liberty Group’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. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

1. Falcon 

We based NV for Falcon on delivered 

prices to unaffiliated customers in the 

third country market. We made 

deductions from the starting price for 

export taxes, in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. We also 

made deductions, where appropriate, 

from the starting price for inland freight 

expenses from the plant to the port, 

other shipment and movement 

expenses, clearing and forwarding 

agency charges, cold storage charges, 

international freight expenses, and 

terminal handling charges, 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 for commissions, credit 

expenses, bank fees, export inspection 

agency (EIA) expenses, export credit 

guarantee corporation premiums, and 

outside inspection/lab expenses. 

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 third country 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with sections 

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

2. HLL 

We based NV for HLL on cost and 

freight, delivered, and free on board 

prices to unaffiliated customers in the 

third county market. We made 

adjustments, where appropriate, to the 

starting price for export taxes, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) 

of the Act. We also made deductions, 

where appropriate, from the starting 

price for inland freight expenses from 

the plant to the port, other shipment 

and movement expenses, shipment–

related expenses, international freight 

expenses, and terminal handling 

charges, 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 for commissions, credit 

expenses, bank fees, EIA inspection 

fees, and outside inspection/lab 

expenses. Specifically, where 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10667 

7This rate is based on the weighted average of the 

margins calculation for those companies selected 

for individual review, excluding de minimis 

margins or margins based entirely on AFA. 

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 third country 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with sections 

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

3. The Liberty Group 

We based NV for the Liberty Group on 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the third country market. 

We made deductions from the starting 

price for export taxes, in accordance 

with section 773(a)(6)(B)(iii) of the Act. 

We also made deductions, where 

appropriate, from the starting price for 

inland freight expenses from the plant 

to the port, other shipment and 

movement expenses, clearing and 

forwarding agency charges, shipment–

related expenses, cold storage charges, 

international freight expenses, and 

terminal handling charges, 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 for commissions, credit 

expenses, bank fees, EIA inspection 

fees, and outside inspection/lab 

expenses. 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 third country 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with section 

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

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, 

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 CV. 

Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 

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 circumstances of sale in 

accordance with section 773(a)(8) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 

comparisons to EP, we made 

circumstance–of-sale adjustments by 

deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred on comparison market sales 

from, and adding U.S. direct selling 

expenses to, CV. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars for HLL and the Liberty 

Group 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. 

Regarding Falcon, this respondent 

reported that it purchased forward 

exchange contracts which were used to 

convert the currency in which certain 

sales transactions were made into home 

market currency. Under 19 CFR 

351.415(b), if a currency transaction on 

forward markets is directly linked to an 

export sale under consideration, the 

Department is directed to use the 

exchange rate specified with respect to 

such foreign currency in the forward 

sale agreement to convert the foreign 

currency. See LTFV Preliminary 

Determination, 69 FR at 47118 and 

LTFV Final Determination, and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. Therefore, 

for Falcon we used the reported forward 

exchange rates, where applicable, and 

the Federal Reserve rates for those sales 

without reported forward exchange 

contracts, for all currency conversions. 

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 

Falcon Marine Exports Limited ................................................................................................................................ 11.09 

Hindustan Lever Limited .......................................................................................................................................... 24.52 

The Liberty Group (Devi Marine Food Exports Private Limited, Kader Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Premier Marine Products, Kader Exports Private Limited, Universal Cold Storage Private Limited, Liberty Frozen Foods Private Limited) and Liberty Oil Mills Limited ........................................................... 4.03 

Review–Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies:7

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Allanasons Ltd. ........................................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

Amalgam Foods & Beverages Limited .................................................................................................................... 10.54 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10668 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Amulya Seafoods ..................................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited ........................................................................................................................ 10.54 

Baby Marine International ........................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

Baraka Overseas Traders ....................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Bhatsons Aquatic Products ..................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Calcutta Seafoods ................................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Castlerock Fisheries Ltd. ......................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Coastal Corporation Ltd. .......................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Coastal Trawlers Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd. .................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Coreline Exports ...................................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Gajula Exim P Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Haripriya Marine Food Exports ................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

IFB Agro Industries Ltd. (Aquatic & Marine Products Div.) .................................................................................... 10.54 

ITC Ltd. .................................................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

K R M Marine Exports Ltd. ...................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Kalyanee Marine ...................................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Kings Marine Products ............................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd. ....................................................................................................................... 10.54 

MSC Marine Exporters ............................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

Magnum Estate Private Limited .............................................................................................................................. 10.54 

Magnum Exports ...................................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Magnum Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. .................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd. ...................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Mangala Sea Products ............................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

N.G.R Aqua International ........................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

Navayuga Exports Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

Nila Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

Penver Products (P) Ltd. ......................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................. 10.54 

Raju Exports ............................................................................................................................................................ 10.54 

Ram’s Assorted Cold Storage Ltd. .......................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Saanthi Seafoods Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................. 10.54 

Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ..................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd. ................................................................................................................. 10.54 

Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd. ........................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Sun–Bio Techonology Limited ................................................................................................................................. 10.54 

Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited ................................................................................................................. 10.54 

Survarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. .............................................................................................................................. 10.54 

Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd. ................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Veejay Impex ........................................................................................................................................................... 10.54 

Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd. ........................................................................................................................ 10.54 

AFA Rate Applicable to the Following 

Companies: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Amison Foods Ltd. ................................................................................................................................................... 82.30 

Amison Seafoods Ltd. ............................................................................................................................................. 82.30 

Baby Marine (Eastern) Exports ............................................................................................................................... 82.30 

Baby Marine Exports ............................................................................................................................................... 82.30 

Baby Marine Products ............................................................................................................................................. 82.30 

Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div) .......................................................................................................................... 82.30 

Global Sea Foods & Hotels Ltd ............................................................................................................................... 82.30 

HA & R Enterprises ................................................................................................................................................. 82.30 

InterSea ExportsCorporation ................................................................................................................................... 82.30 

Kadalkanny Frozen Foods ....................................................................................................................................... 82.30 

Lotus Sea Farms ..................................................................................................................................................... 82.30 

National Steel .......................................................................................................................................................... 82.30 

National Steel & Agro Ind ........................................................................................................................................ 82.30 

Nsil Exports .............................................................................................................................................................. 82.30 

Premier Marine Foods ............................................................................................................................................. 82.30 

R F. Exports ............................................................................................................................................................. 82.30 

Vaibhav Sea Foods ................................................................................................................................................. 82.30 

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). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit cases 

briefs not later than 30 days after the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10669 

1This figure does not include those companies 

for which the Department is preliminarily 

rescinding the administrative review. 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, may be filed not later 

than 35 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. 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. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

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. Id. 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 the 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 Falcon, HLL, and the Liberty 

Group, because these companies 

reported the entered value for some of 

their 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 sales which 

entered value was reported. For Falcon, 

HLL, and the Liberty Group’s U.S. sales 

reported without entered values, 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. 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. 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 10.17 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Shrimp Order, 70 FR at 5148. These 

deposit 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 

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. E7–4277 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–549–822] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From Thailand: 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 

Thailand with respect to 27 companies.1

The respondents which the Department 

selected for individual review are Good 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES