Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10689 

1Further, we preliminarily determine to use total 

adverse facts available to determine the rate for 

eleven of the sixteen administrative review 

companies and the Vietnam-wide entity. 

2The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is 

the Petitioner. 

3See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of New 

Shipper Review, 71 FR 14834 (March 24, 2006) 

(‘‘New Shipper Initiation’’). 

4AAAS Logistics, Agrimex, Amanda Foods 

(Vietnam) Ltd.*, American Container Line, Angiang 

Agricultural Technology Service Company, An 

Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock 

Company (Agifish), Aquatic Products Trading 

Company*, Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited*, 

Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports, Bentre 

Aquaproduct Imports & Exports, Cai Doi Vam 

Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex)*, 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export 

Corporation (Camimex)*, Cam Ranh Seafoods 

Processing Enterprise Company (Camranh 

Seafoods)*, Cantho Animal Fisheries Product 

Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex)*, Can Tho 

Agricultural Products, Can Tho Agricultural and 

Animal Products Import Export Company (Cataco)*, 

Can Tho Seafood Exports, Cautre Enterprises, 

Coastal Fishery Development, Coastal Fisheries 

Development Corporation (Cofidec)*, C P Vietnam 

Livestock Co. Ltd.*, C P Livestock, Cuu Long 

Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro)*, Danang 

Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (Seaprodex 

Danang)*, Dong Phuc Huynh Frozen Seafoods Fty, 

General Imports & Exports, Grobest & I Mei Industry 

Vietnam, Hacota Hai Viet, Hai Thuan Export 

Seaproducts Processing Co. Ltd., Hanoi Sea 

Products Import Export Corporation*, Hoa Nam 

Marine Agricultural, Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct 

Fty, Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation 

(Incomfish)*, Kien Giang Sea Products Import—

Export Company (Kisimex)*, Kim Anh Co. Ltd., 

Khanh Loi Trading, Lamson Import-Export 

Foodstuffs Corporation, Minh Hai Export Frozen 

Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, Minh Hai 

Export Frozen Seafoods Processing Joint Stock 

Company (Minh Hai Jostoco)*, Minh Hai Joint 

Stock Seafoods Processing Company (Seaprodex 

Minh Hai)*, Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export 

Company (Seaprimiex Co)*, Minh Phat Seafood*, 

Minh Phu Seafood Corporation*, Minh Qui 

Seafood*, Ngoc Sinh Seafoods*, Nha Trang 

Company Limited, Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company (Nhtrang Fisco)*, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. 

Ltd., Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (Nhatrang 

Seafoods)*, Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd.*, 

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import Export 

Company Ltd.*, Phuong Nam Co. Ltd.*, Phuong 

Nam Seafood Co. Ltd., Saigon Orchide, Sao Ta 

Foods Joint Stock Compay (Fimex VN)*, Seafood 

Processing Imports Exports Vietnam, Seaprodex, 

Sea Product, Sea Products Imports & Exports, Song 

Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd.*, Song 

Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Soc Trang 

Aquatic Products and General Import Export 

Company (Stampimex)*, Soc Trang Aquatic 

Products and General Import Export Company 

(Stampimex)*, Sonacos, Special Aquatic Products 

Joing Stock Company (Seaspimex), Tacvan Frozen 

Seafoods Processing Export Company, Thami 

Shipping & Airfreight, Thanh Long, Thanh Long, 

Thien Ma Seafood, Tho Quang Seafood Processing 

& Export Company, Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and 

Trading Corporation*, Tourism Material and 

Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City 

Branch), Truc An Company, UTXI Aquatic Products 

Processing Company*, Viet Foods Co. Ltd.*, Viet 

Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One)*, 

Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie Co. Ltd., Viet 

Nhan Company*, Vilfood Co, Vinh Loi Import 

Export Company (Vimexco)*, Vita, V N Seafoods. 

(* these companies received a separate rate in the 

prior segment (the less-than-fair value investigation) 

of this proceeding. 

5See Letter from Grobest Re: Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Grobest’s 

Request for Alignment of New Shipper and 

Administrative Reviews, dated May 15, 2006. 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–4279 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the 

First Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review and a new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’), both covering the 

period of review (‘‘POR’’) of July 16, 

2004, through January 1, 2006. As 

discussed below, we preliminarily 

determine that certain respondents in 

these reviews (covering one new 

shipper review and sixteen companies 

subject to the administrative review) 1

have not made sales in the United States 

at prices below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Bankhead (respondent Grobest), 

and Matthew Renkey (respondent Fish 

One), AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9068 

and (202) 482–2312, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 

5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘VN Shrimp 

Order’’). On January 31, 2006, we 

received a request for a new shipper 

review from Grobest & I-Mei Industrial 

(Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’). On 

February 1, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam for the 

period July 16, 2004, through January 

31, 2006. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). 

On February 28, 2006, we received 

requests to conduct administrative 

reviews of 83 companies from the 

Petitioner 2 in addition to requests by 

certain Vietnamese companies. See 

Notice of Initiation of Administrative 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

and the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 17813 (April 7, 2006) 

(‘‘Administrative Review Initiation’’). 

On March 17, 2006, the Department also 

initiated a new shipper review with 

respect to Grobest.3 On March 31, 2006, 

the Department initiated an 

administrative review of eighty-four 4

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise from Vietnam. See 

Administrative Review Initiation. On 

May 31, 2006, the Department aligned 

Grobest’s new shipper review with that 

of Fish One based on a request from 

Grobest.5

On July 27, 2006, in accordance with 

section 351.213(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, we rescinded 

the administrative review with respect 

to sixty-eight companies. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial 

Rescission of the First Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 42628 (July 27, 2006) 

(‘‘Rescission Notice’’). Therefore, these 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10690 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

6This includes sixteen companies subject to the 

administrative review and one new shipper; the 

administrative review for Grobest was rescinded. 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

reviews cover 17 6 producers/exporters 

of the subject merchandise and the 

Vietnam-wide entity. 

On August 21, 2006, the Department 

extended the preliminary results for the 

instant reviews until February 28, 2007. 

See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Brazil, Ecuador, India, the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the 

People’s Republic of China, and 

Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limits for the Preliminary Results of the 

First Administrative Reviews and New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 50387 (August 

25, 2006). 

On 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 nonfrozen 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). 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,7

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 (HTS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS 

subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled 

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

of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 

percent purity has been applied; (3) 

with the entire surface of the shrimp 

flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with 

the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp 

content of the end product constituting 

between four and 10 percent of the 

product’s total weight after being 

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

that is subjected to IQF freezing 

immediately after application of the 

dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a 

shrimp-based product that, when dusted 

in accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Respondent Selection 

On April 3, 2006, the Department sent 

letters to the Vietnam Association of 

Seafood Exporters and Producers 

(‘‘VASEP’’) and the Ministry of Fisheries 

in Vietnam requesting assistance with 

distributing the Department’s 

questionnaire. On April 25, 2006, the 

Department sent a letter to all interested 

parties clarifying an aspect of the 

separate rates application. Between 

April 27 and May 19, 2006, the 

Department received Quantity and 

Value questionnaire (‘‘Q&V’’) responses 

and separate rate certifications from 

COFIDEC, Seaprodex Hanoi, CATACO, 

FAQUIMEX, HAVICO, Kim Anh, Fish 

One, Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. and 

subsidiary Western Seafood Processing 

and Exporting Factory, Fimex, Grobest, 

CAM RANH, Bac Lieu, Thuan Phuoc 

Seafoods and Trading Corporation, Ngoc 

Sinh, STAPIMEX, UTXI, Amanda, Minh 

Phu, Nha Trang Fisco, Viet Foods, 

VIMEXCO, Seaprimexco, Kisimex, 

Cafatex, Seaprodex Minh Hai, CP 

Vietnam, Incomfish, Minh Hai Jostco, 

Phu Cuong, Camimex, Cuu Long Sea 

Pro, Nha Trang Seafoods, Seaprodex 

Danang, and CADOVIMEX. 

On May 22, 2006, the Department 

resent its Q&V questionnaire and 

separate rate application via e-mail and 

overnight express delivery to all 

companies that did not respond to the 

Department’s original Q&V 

questionnaire and separate rate 

application. See Memorandum to the 

file, through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Matthew 

Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re: 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Issuance of the Second Round of 

Quantity and Value Questionnaires and 

Separate Rate Applications/ 

Certifications. On May 25, 2006, the 

Department corrected a mistake to its 

May 22, 2006, Q&V follow-up letters 

addressed to VASEP and the Ministry of 

Fisheries. See Memorandum to the file, 

through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Matthew 

Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re: 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Quantity and Value Response for Tho 

Quang Seafood Processing & Export 

Company. On May 26, 2006, the 

Department reissued its Q&V 

questionnaire and separate rate 

application to two additional 

companies. 

Between June 2 and July 11, 2006, the 

Petitioner withdrew its request for 

antidumping administrative reviews for 

certain companies and certain 

companies also withdrew their requests 

for an administrative review. See 

Rescission Notice. On June 6, 2006, the 

Petitioner filed a letter requesting that 

the Department select mandatory 

respondents through a sampling 

methodology. On June 7, 2006, Pataya 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10691 

8Prior to the withdrawal of their requests for 

review, on June 20, 2006, the Department issued its 

non-market economy questionnaire to the three 

mandatory respondents: Amanda, Fimex, and 

Phuong Nam, in the instant administrative review. 

9Fish One reported using salt in its production 

of shrimp, however, it also uses salt in its 

production of ice, which we are referring to as 

‘‘salt2.’’

Food Industries (Vietnam) Limited filed 

a letter stating that it had no shipments 

during the POR. On June 14, 2006, the 

Department placed on the record a Q&V 

response from Vilfood Co. Ltd. and 

Khanh Loi Production & Trading Co., 

Ltd. See Memorandum to the file, 

through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Matthew 

Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 9, re: 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: No 

Shipment Responses from Vilfood Co. 

Ltd. and Khanh Loi Production & 

Trading Co., Ltd. On June 15, 2006, the 

Department met with the Petitioner to 

discuss the shrimp administrative 

reviews. See Memorandum to the file, 

from Chris Riker, Program Manager, 

Office 9, re: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India, 

Thailand, the People’s Republic of 

China and the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Ex Parte Meeting. 

On June 16, 2006, the Department 

issued its respondent selection 

memorandum stating that we selected 

Amanda, Fimex, and Phuong Nam as 

the three mandatory respondents since 

they were the three largest exporters, by 

volume, of the remaining companies. 

See Memorandum to Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, from James C. Doyle, 

Office Director, Office 9, re: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Selection of Respondents 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). On 

July 11, 2006, the Department selected 

three new mandatory respondents: Fish 

One, Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex 

(the three largest remaining exporters, 

by volume) based on the withdrawals of 

requests for review from the three 

previously selected mandatory 

respondents. See Memorandum to 

James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, 

through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Cindy Lai 

Robinson, Senior Analyst re: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Selection of Additional 

Mandatory Respondents (‘‘Second 

Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

Questionnaires 

The following sixteen companies 

remain in the administrative review: 

Aquatic Products Trading Company, 

Bac Lieu Fisheries, Camranh Seafoods, 

Seaprodex Hanoi, Incomfish, Kisimex, 

Nha Trang Company Limited, Nhatrang 

Fisco, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd., 

Seaprodex, Sea Products Imports & 

Exports, Song Huong ASC ImportExport Company Ltd., Song Huong ASC 

Joint Stock Company, Vietnam Fish 

One, Viet Nhan Company, and V N 

Seafoods. 

On March 20, 2006, the Department 

issued Grobest the non-market economy 

questionnaire. On July 12, 2006, the 

Department issued its non-market 

economy questionnaire to the three new 

mandatory respondents Fish One, 

Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex.8

Grobest responded to the 

Department’s non-market economy 

questionnaire and subsequent 

supplemental questionnaires between 

April 2006 and November 2006. Fish 

One responded to the Department’s nonmarket economy questionnaire and 

subsequent supplemental 

questionnaires between August 2006 

and November 2006. Between August 

and November 2006, the Petitioner 

submitted comments regarding Fish 

One’s questionnaire responses. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On June 20, 2006, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on surrogate country and 

information pertaining to valuing factors 

of production. Grobest, Fish One, and 

the Petitioner submitted surrogate 

country comments and surrogate value 

data between November 16, 2006, and 

February 12, 2007. 

Use of Facts Available 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), provides 

that, if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

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

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department}for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information 

requested in the requested form and 

manner, together with a full explanation 

and suggested alternative form in which 

such party is able to submit the 

information,’’ the Department may 

modify the requirements to avoid 

imposing an unreasonable burden on 

that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses, 

as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the Department ‘‘finds that 

an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information from the administering 

authority or the Commission, the 

administering authority or the 

Commission * * *, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ See also Statement 

of Administrative Action (SAA) 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act (URAA), H.R. Rep. No. 

103–316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). 

1. Fish One Unreported Factors of 

Production (‘‘FOPs’’) 

For these preliminary results, in 

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) of 

the Act, we have determined that the 

use of facts available is appropriate for 

Fish One’s unreported consumption of 

salt2 9 and marinade. 

Fish One did not report salt2 or 

marinade consumption in its three 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10692 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

10August 25, 2006, October 25, 2006, and 

November 21, 2006 responses to the Department’s 

original and supplemental Section C and D 

questionnaires. 

11Aquatic Products Trading Company, Nha Trang 

Company Limited, Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd., 

Seaprodex, Sea Products Imports & Exports, Song 

Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd., Song 

Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Viet Nhan 

Company, and V N Seafoods. 

12See, e.g., Heavy Forged Hand Tools, Finished 

or Unfinished, With or Without Handles, From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews and 

Final Rescission and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, 71 FR 

54269 (September 14, 2006) (‘‘HFHTs Final 2006’’) 

and Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review for Two Manufacturers/ 

Exporters: Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 50183, 50184 

(August 17, 2000). 

submissions of FOP data dated August 

25, 2006, October 26, 2006, and 

November 21, 2006. At verification, we 

discovered that Fish One used salt2 and 

marinade during the production of 

subject merchandise. See Fish One 

Verification Report, at 10; see also 

Memorandum to the File, through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, 

from Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, 

Office 9; Company Analysis 

Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Viet Hai Seafoods 

Company Ltd. (Vietnam Fish One), 

dated February 28, 2007 at 3. Because 

Fish One withheld this data and failed 

to report its actual salt2 and marinade 

consumption to the Department, despite 

multiple opportunities to provide 

complete FOP data,10 we are applying 

facts available for Fish One’s salt2 and 

marinade consumption pursuant to 

section 776(a)(2)(A) of the Act. 

Section 776(b) of the Act states that if 

the Department ‘‘finds that an interested 

party has failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information from the 

administering authority or the 

Commission, the administering 

authority or the Commission * * *, in 

reaching the applicable determination 

under this title, may use an inference 

that is adverse to the interests of that 

party in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ See also SAA 

accompanying the URAA at 870. An 

adverse inference may include reliance 

on information derived from the 

Petition, the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous review, or 

any other information placed on the 

record. See section 776(b) of the Act. 

In this instance, Fish One failed to act 

to the best of its ability to comply with 

the Department’s repeated requests for 

information regarding all of its FOP 

used during the POR, i.e. salt2 and 

marinade. Only at verification did it 

become clear that these two previously 

unreported factors of production 

existed. As noted above, Fish One had 

several opportunities to provide the 

information regarding these two FOPs 

and was the sole entity with both 

possession and control of this 

information; however, Fish One failed 

to report the data for these two FOPs. 

Throughout the proceeding, Fish One 

did not indicate that it was unable to 

submit complete FOP information in the 

requested form and manner, nor did 

Fish One provide a full explanation or 

suggest an alternative form in which to 

submit the information, in accordance 

with section 782(c)(1) of the Act. 

Therefore, we find that Fish One failed 

to cooperate to the best of its ability 

with respect to these FOPs and we are 

applying AFA for these two factors used 

by Fish One in these preliminary 

results, pursuant to section 776(b) of the 

Act. As partial AFA for Fish One’s salt2 

and marinade FOPs, we are using the 

highest single monthly usage rate for 

these inputs and applying this monthly 

usage ratio to all months during the 

POR. 

2. Vietnam-Wide Entity and NonResponsive Companies 

As mentioned in the ‘‘General 

Background’’ section above, based on 

withdrawals and subsequent 

rescissions, the administrative review 

covers sixteen companies. Of those 

sixteen companies, only one mandatory 

respondent (Fish One) and four separate 

rate companies (Bac Lieu Fisheries, 

Camranh Seafoods, Incomfish, and 

Nhatrang Fisco) chose to participate. 

The remaining eleven companies did 

not provide responses to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

On July 12, 2006, the Department issued 

the non-market economy questionnaire 

to mandatory respondents, Kisimex and 

Seaprodex Hanoi. Neither respondent 

provided a response to Section A of the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire by the deadline of August 

2, 2006. The Department sent letters to 

both companies on August 4, 2006, 

stating that the final opportunity to 

submit a response to the Department’s 

questionnaire would be August 11, 

2006, but neither company responded. 

Additionally, the nine remaining 

companies 11 did not respond at any 

point to the Department’s Q&V and 

separate rate questionnaires, despite the 

fact that these companies, as outlined 

above, were given two opportunities to 

do so. Furthermore, at no point in the 

administrative review did any of these 

companies submit comments regarding 

their status in this proceeding. As such, 

we find it appropriate to apply facts 

available to these eleven companies in 

accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) 

and (B) of the Act. Moreover, we find 

that because these eleven companies did 

not respond to the Department’s 

questionnaires, they did not cooperate 

to the best of their ability and therefore, 

adverse facts available is appropriate. 

As these eleven companies did not 

provide the information necessary to 

conduct a separate rate analysis, we also 

consider these companies as part of the 

Vietnam-wide entity. Therefore, we are 

applying an adverse inference to the 

Vietnam-wide entity (including the 

eleven non-responsive companies) in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act.12

As AFA, we are applying the highest 

rate from any segment of this 

proceeding which in this case is the rate 

assigned to the Vietnam-wide entity in 

the LTFV investigation. Section 776(c) 

of the Act requires that the Department 

corroborate, to the extent practicable, 

secondary information used as facts 

available. Secondary information is 

defined as ‘‘information derived from 

the petition that gave rise to the 

investigation or review, the final 

determination concerning the subject 

merchandise, or any previous review 

under section 751 concerning the 

subject merchandise.’’ See SAA at 870 

and 19 CFR 351.308(d). 

The SAA further provides that the 

term ‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. Thus, 

to corroborate secondary information, 

the Department will, to the extent 

practicable, examine the reliability and 

relevance of the information used. The 

AFA rate we are applying for the current 

review of frozen shrimp was 

corroborated in the investigation. See 

VN Shrimp Order, 70 FR 5152 (February 

1, 2005). No information has been 

presented in the current review that 

calls into question the reliability of the 

information used for this AFA rate. 

Thus, the Department finds that the 

information is reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10693 

13The verification of Grobest’s sales and FOPs 

and that of its affiliated United States importer 

Ocean Duke took place from November 29, 2006, 

through December 8, 2006. See Memorandum to the 

file through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Office 9, Import Administration, from Nicole 

Bankhead, Analyst, Office 9: Verification of the 

Sales and Factors Response of Grobest & I-Mei 

Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’) and its 

affiliate Ocean Duke in the Antidumping New 

Shipper Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 

14The verification of Fish One’s sales and FOPs 

took place from December 11, 2006, through 

December 15, 2006. See Memorandum to the file 

through Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 

9, Import Administration, from Matthew Renkey, 

Senior Case Analyst, Office 9: Verification of the 

Sales and Factors Response of Vietnam Fish One 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fish One’’) in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam. 

15See Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, 

Senior Analyst, Office 9, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Office 9, to James C. Doyle, 

Director, Office 9: Bona Fide Nature of the Sale in 

the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp: Grobest, dated 

February 28, 2007 (‘‘Grobest Prelim Bona Fide 

Memo’’). 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin in that 

case as adverse best information 

available (the predecessor to facts 

available) because the margin was based 

on another company’s uncharacteristic 

business expense resulting in an 

unusually high margin. Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited. See D&L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the 

Department will not use a margin that 

has been judicially invalidated). None of 

these unusual circumstances are present 

with respect to the rate being used here. 

Moreover, the rate selected (i.e., 25.76 

percent) is the rate currently applicable 

to the Vietnam-wide entity. The 

Department assumes that if an 

uncooperative respondent could have 

demonstrated a lower rate, it would 

have cooperated. See Rhone Poulenc, 

Inc. v. United States, 899 F2d 1185 (Fed. 

Cir. 1990); Ta Chen Stainless Steel Pipe, 

Inc. v. United States, 24 CIT 841 (2000) 

(respondents should not benefit from 

failure to cooperate). As there is no 

information on the record of this review 

that demonstrates that this rate is not 

appropriate to use as AFA in the current 

review, we determine that this rate has 

relevance. 

As this rate is both reliable and 

relevant, we determine that it has 

probative value, and is thus in 

accordance with section 776(c)’s 

requirement that secondary information 

be corroborated to the extent practicable 

(i.e., that it has probative value). 

Verification 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), we 

conducted verifications of the sales and 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) for 

Grobest 13 and Fish One.14 The 

Petitioner submitted pre-verification 

comments for Fish One on November 

20, 2006. 

New Shipper Reviews Bona Fide 

Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated the bona fide 

nature of the sale made by Grobest for 

the new shipper review. We 

preliminarily find that the new shipper 

sale made by Grobest is a bona fide 

transaction. Based on our investigation 

into the bona fide nature of the sale, the 

questionnaire responses submitted by 

Grobest, and our verification thereof, as 

well the company’s eligibility for a 

separate rate (see Separate Rates section 

below) and the Department’s 

preliminary determination that Grobest 

was not affiliated with any exporter or 

producer that had previously shipped 

subject merchandise to the United 

States, we preliminarily determine that 

Grobest has met the requirements to 

qualify as a new shipper during the 

POR. Therefore, for purposes of these 

preliminary results of review, we are 

treating Grobest’s respective sale of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States as an appropriate transaction for 

this new shipper review.15

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’) country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 

2006). None of the parties to this 

proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates Determination 

A designation as an NME remains in 

effect until it is revoked by the 

Department. See section 771(18)(C) of 

the Act. Accordingly, there is a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within Vietnam are subject 

to government control and, thus, should 

be assessed a single antidumping duty 

rate. It is the Department’s standard 

policy to assign all exporters of the 

merchandise subject to review in NME 

countries a single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to exports. To establish 

whether a company is sufficiently 

independent to be entitled to a separate, 

company-specific rate, the Department 

analyzes each exporting entity in an 

NME country under the test established 

in the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991), as amplified by the 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon 

Carbide’’). 

A. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; and (2) any 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of companies. 

In the LTFV investigation for this 

case, the Department granted separate 

rates to Fish One, the only mandatory 

respondent in the instant review, and to 

the four participating separate rate 

respondents, Nha Trang Fisco, Bac Lieu 

Fisheries, Cam Ranh Seafoods, and 

Incomfish. See Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004) and 

accompanying Memorandum to James 

C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/CVD 

Enforcement, NME Unit, Office IX, 

THROUGH: Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, NME 

Unit, Office IX , FROM: Nicole 

Bankhead, Case Analyst, re: 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Final Determination Separate 

Rates Memorandum for Section A 

Respondents; see also VN Shrimp 

Order, 70 FR 5152 (February 1, 2005) 

and accompanying MEMORANDUM 

TO: James C. Doyle, Office Director, AD/ 

CVD Enforcement, Office 9, THROUGH: 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/ 

CVD Enforcement, Office 9, FROM: 

Nicole Bankhead, Case Analyst, and 

Paul Walker, Case Analyst, RE: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10694 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

16The preliminary finding applies to (1) the one 

mandatory participating respondent of this 

administrative review: Fish One; (2) the new 

shipper company under review; Grobest; and (3) the 

non-selected respondents of this administrative 

review seeking a separate rate: Nha Trang Fisco, Bac 

Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh Seafoods, and Incomfish. 

Antidumping Duty Investigation of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Analysis of Ministerial Error Allegations 

at Comments 7,8,9,10, and 11. However, 

it is the Department’s policy to evaluate 

separate rates questionnaire responses 

each time a respondent makes a separate 

rates claim, regardless of whether the 

respondent received a separate rate in 

the past. See Manganese Metal From the 

People’s Republic of China, Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). 

In this review, only Fish One, 

Grobest, and the four participating 

separate rate companies submitted 

complete responses to the separate rates 

section of the Department’s NME 

questionnaire. The evidence submitted 

by these companies includes 

government laws and regulations on 

corporate ownership, business licenses, 

and narrative information regarding the 

companies’ operations and selection of 

management. The evidence provided by 

these companies supports a finding of a 

de jure absence of governmental control 

over their export activities. We have no 

information in this proceeding that 

would cause us to reconsider this 

determination. Thus, we believe that the 

evidence on the record supports a 

preliminary finding of an absence of de 

jure government control based on: (1) 

An absence of restrictive stipulations 

associated with the exporter’s business 

license; and (2) the legal authority on 

the record decentralizing control over 

the respondents.16

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto governmental 

control over exports is based on whether 

the Respondent: (1) Sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and other exporters; (2) retains the 

proceeds from its export sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) has autonomy from 

the government regarding the selection 

of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 

FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

In their questionnaire responses, Fish 

One and the separate rate companies 

submitted evidence indicating an 

absence of de facto governmental 

control over their export activities. 

Specifically, this evidence indicates 

that: (1) Each company sets its own 

export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) each 

company retains the proceeds from its 

sales and makes independent decisions 

regarding the disposition of profits or 

financing of losses; (3) each company 

has a general manager, branch manager 

or division manager with the authority 

to negotiate and bind the company in an 

agreement; (4) the general manager is 

selected by the board of directors or 

company employees, and the general 

manager appoints the deputy managers 

and the manager of each department; 

and (5) there is no restriction on any of 

the companies use of export revenues. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that Fish One and the separate rate 

companies have established prima facie 

that they qualify for separate rates under 

the criteria established by Silicon 

Carbide and Sparklers. Additionally, 

Grobest reported that it is wholly owned 

by foreign entities. Therefore, an 

additional separate-rates analysis is not 

necessary to determine whether 

Grobest’s export activities are 

independent from government control. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine 

Monohydrate from the People’s 

Republic of China, 64 FR 71104, 71105 

(December 20, 1999) (where the 

respondent was wholly foreign-owned, 

thus, qualified for a separate rate). 

Separate Rate Calculation 

Based on timely requests from 

individual exporters and petitioners, the 

Department originally initiated this 

review with respect to 84 companies. 

During the course of the review, 

numerous requests for review were 

withdrawn; however, the Department 

employed a limited examination 

methodology, as it did not have the 

resources to examine all companies for 

which a review request was made. As 

stated previously, the Department 

selected three exporters, Fish One, 

Seaprodex Hanoi, and Kisimex as 

mandatory respondents in this review. 

Four additional companies (Nha Trang 

Fisco, Bac Lieu Fisheries, Cam Ranh 

Seafoods and Incomfish) submitted 

timely information as requested by the 

Department and remain subject to 

review as cooperative separate rate 

respondents. 

Fish One participated fully in this 

review and is receiving a preliminary 

antidumping duty rate of zero. As noted 

above, however, the remaining two 

mandatory respondents, Seaprodex 

Hanoi and Kisimex, did not respond to 

our questionnaires. As a result, these 

two entities are not entitled to a separate 

rate in this review and thus are 

considered to be part of the Vietnamwide entity. As part of the Vietnamwide entity, these two companies are 

receiving a preliminary antidumping 

duty rate of 25.76 percent. 

The Department must also assign a 

rate to the remaining four cooperative 

separate rate respondents not selected 

for individual examination. We note 

that the statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not directly address the 

establishment of a rate to be applied to 

individual companies not selected for 

examination where the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

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

Department’s practice in this regard, in 

cases involving limited selection based 

on exporters accounting for the largest 

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

companies excluding zero and de 

minimis rates and rates based entirely 

on adverse facts available. In the instant 

review, however, the rates for the 

mandatory respondents include only a 

single zero rate and a rate for the 

Vietnam-wide entity based on total 

AFA. 

While the statute does not specifically 

address this particular set of 

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

the Act does specify the methodology to 

be followed when a similar fact pattern 

arises in the context of the all-others 

rate established in an investigation. 

While not entirely analogous to the 

determination of a rate to be applied to 

responsive separate rate respondents in 

the context of a NME review, we find it 

to be instructive in these circumstances. 

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

that in situations where the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

established for all exporters and 

producers individually investigated are 

zero or de minimis, or are determined 

entirely under section 776 (facts 

available section), ‘‘the administering 

authority may use any reasonable 

method to establish the estimated allothers rate for exporters and producers 

not individually investigated, including 

averaging the weighted-average 

dumping margins determined for the 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated.’’

The Statement of Administrative 

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

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10695 

17 Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, 

Office of Policy, to Jim Doyle, Office Director, AD/ 

CVD Enforcement, Office 9: New Shipper Review of 

Certain Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Request 

for a List of Surrogate Countries, dated June 20, 

2006, at Attachment I; Memorandum from Ron 

Lorentzen, Director, Office of Policy, to Jim Doyle, 

Office Director, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Warmwater Shrimp (‘‘Shrimp’’) from 

Vietnam: Request for a List of Surrogate Countries 

dated June 20, 2006, at Attachment II (‘‘Surrogate 

Country Lists’’). 

such cases will be to weight-average the 

zero and de minimis margins and 

margins determined pursuant to the 

facts available, provided that volume 

data is available.’’ See SAA 

accompanying the Uruguay Round 

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

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

However, the SAA also provides that: 

[I]f this method is not feasible, or if it 

results in an average that would not be 

reasonably reflective of potential 

dumping margins for non-investigated 

exporters or producers, Commerce may 

use other reasonable means.’’ Id. 

In this case, because of the nature of 

the shrimp industry, the Department 

preliminarily concludes that it cannot 

accurately determine a margin based on 

information provided by the separate 

rate entities, furthermore, we 

preliminarily find that we cannot 

employ such alternative methods as 

weight-averaging AFA, de minimis, and 

zero rates or partial use of the 

information on the record. Specifically, 

while the separate rates entities have 

given us total volume and value 

information with respect to subject 

merchandise, we note that shrimp 

prices vary dramatically, principally 

due to count-size. Thus, margins 

calculated on the basis of average prices 

without regard to count size and other 

factors do not reflect a meaningful, 

accurate comparison. Because the 

Department does not have comparable 

information with respect to the count 

sizes sold by the separate entities, we 

find we must look to other reasonable 

means to determine an appropriate 

margin for the separate rate entities 

subject to this review. 

The Department has preliminarily 

determined to apply the margin 

calculated for cooperative separate rate 

respondents in the immediately 

preceding segment of this proceeding, 

i.e., the margin of 4.57 percent assigned 

to such companies in the LTFV 

investigation. We believe this 

methodology constitutes a reasonable 

method by which to calculate such rate. 

The rate of 4.57 percent calculated in 

the LTFV was based on the 

Department’s thorough examination of 

several cooperative companies 

accounting for a majority of exports 

during the period of investigation. We 

believe, therefore, that this rate is 

reflective of the range of commercial 

behavior demonstrated by exporters of 

the subject merchandise during a very 

recent period in time. Therefore, we 

find it a reasonable means by which to 

determine a rate for non-examined 

cooperative separate entities and have 

employed this methodology for 

purposes of these preliminary results. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOPs’’), valued in a surrogate market 

economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

factors of production, the Department 

shall utilize, to the extent possible, the 

prices or costs of FOPs in one or more 

market economy countries that are: (1) 

At a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country; 

and (2) significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. The sources 

of the surrogate factor values are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’

section below and in Memorandum to 

the File through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Office 9 from 

Matthew Renkey, Senior Analyst, Office 

9: Antidumping Duty Administrative 

and New Shipper Reviews of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate 

Values for the Preliminary Results, 

February 28, 2007 (‘‘Factor Valuation 

Memo’’). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’

section, the Department considers 

Vietnam to be an NME country. The 

Department has treated Vietnam as an 

NME country in all previous 

antidumping proceedings. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. None of the 

parties to this proceeding contested 

such treatment. Accordingly, we treated 

Vietnam as an NME country for 

purposes of this review and calculated 

NV, pursuant to section 773(c) of the 

Act, by valuing the FOPs in a surrogate 

country. 

The Department determined that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, 

and Indonesia are countries comparable 

to Vietnam in terms of economic 

development.17 Moreover, it is the 

Department’s practice to select an 

appropriate surrogate country based on 

the availability and reliability of data 

from the countries. See Department 

Policy Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market 

Economy Surrogate Country Selection 

Process, (March 1, 2004) (‘‘Policy 

Bulletin’’). In this case, we have found 

that Bangladesh, Indonesia, and India 

are all significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. We find 

Bangladesh to be a reliable source for 

surrogate values because Bangladesh is 

at a similar level of economic 

development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of 

the Act, is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise, and has 

publicly available and reliable data. See 

Memorandum to the File, through James 

C. Doyle, Office Director, Office 9, 

Import Administration, from Nicole 

Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst, Subject: 

First Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Review and Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Selection of a Surrogate Country, 

(February 28, 2007) (‘‘Surrogate Country 

Memo’’). Furthermore, we note that 

Bangladesh has been the primary 

surrogate country in past segments and 

both the Petitioner and Respondents 

submitted surrogate values based on 

Bangladeshi data that are 

contemporaneous to the POR, which 

gives further credence to the use of 

Bangladesh as a surrogate country. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results in 

an antidumping administrative review 

and a new shipper review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. 

U.S. Price 

A. Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the export price 

(‘‘EP’’) for sales to the United States for 

Fish One because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated party was made before the 

date of importation and the use of 

constructed EP (‘‘CEP’’) was not 

otherwise warranted. We calculated EP 

based on the price to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. In 

accordance with section 772(c) of the 

Act, as appropriate, we deducted from 

the starting price to unaffiliated 

purchasers foreign inland freight and 

brokerage and handling. Each of these 

services was either provided by an NME 

vendor or paid for using an NME 

currency. Thus, we based the deduction 

of these movement charges on surrogate 

values. Additionally, for international 

freight provided by a market economy 

provider and paid in U.S. dollars, we 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10696 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

18This can be accessed online at: http:// 

unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/. 

used the actual cost per kilogram of the 

freight. See Factor Valuation Memo for 

details regarding the surrogate values for 

movement expenses. 

B. Constructed Export Price 

For Grobest, we based U.S. price on 

CEP in accordance with section 772(b) 

of the Act, because sales were made on 

behalf of the Vietnam-based company 

by its U.S. affiliate to unaffiliated 

purchasers. For Grobest’s sales, we 

based CEP on prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price (gross 

unit price) for foreign movement 

expenses, international movement 

expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and 

appropriate selling adjustments, in 

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

the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we also deducted those 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States. We deducted, where 

appropriate, commissions, inventory 

carrying costs, credit expenses, and 

indirect selling expenses. Where foreign 

movement expenses, international 

movement expenses, or U.S. movement 

expenses were provided by Vietnam 

service providers or paid for in 

Vietnamese Dong, we valued these 

services using surrogate values (see 

‘‘Factors of Production’’ section below 

for further discussion). For those 

expenses that were provided by a 

market-economy provider and paid for 

in market-economy currency, we used 

the reported expense. Due to the 

proprietary nature of certain 

adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed 

description of all adjustments made to 

U.S. price for Grobest, see Memorandum 

to the File, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Office 9, from Nicole 

Bankhead, Senior Analyst, Office 9; 

Company Analysis Memorandum in the 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review 

of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam) 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Grobest’’), dated February 28, 

2007. 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using a factors-ofproduction methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOP because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of non-market economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under the 

Department’s normal methodologies. 

2. Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

factors of production reported by 

respondents for the POR, except as 

noted above. To calculate NV, we 

multiplied the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available 

Bangladeshi surrogate values. In 

selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. Specifically, we added 

to Bangladeshi import surrogate values 

a surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory of 

production or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory of 

production where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407–

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not 

use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we 

calculated freight based on the reported 

distance from the supplier to the 

factory. 

With regard to surrogate values and 

the market-economy input values, we 

have disregarded prices that we have 

reason to believe or suspect may be 

subsidized. We have reason to believe or 

suspect that prices of inputs from 

Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and 

India may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) 

(‘‘CTVs from the PRC’’) at 

accompanying issues and decision 

memorandum at Comment 7; see also 

Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Romania: Notice of Final Results 

and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005) 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. The 

legislative history provides that in 

making its determination as to whether 

input values may be subsidized, the 

Department is not required to conduct a 

formal investigation, rather, Congress 

directed the Department to base its 

decision on information that is available 

to it at the time it makes its 

determination. See H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 

590 (1988). 

Therefore, based on the information 

currently available, we have not used 

prices from these countries either in 

calculating the Bangladeshi importbased surrogate values or in calculating 

market-economy input values. In 

instances where a market-economy 

input was obtained solely from 

suppliers located in these countries, we 

used Bangladeshi import-based 

surrogate values to value the input. 

Except as discussed below, the 

Department used United Nations 

ComTrade Statistics (‘‘UN ComTrade’’), 

provided by the United Nations 

Department of Economic and Social 

Affairs’ Statistics Division, as its 

primary source of Bangladeshi surrogate 

value data.18 The data represents 

cumulative values for the calendar year 

2004, for inputs classified by the 

Harmonized Commodity Description 

and Coding System (‘‘HS’’) number. For 

each input value, we used the average 

value per unit for that input imported 

into Bangladesh from all countries that 

the Department has not previously 

determined to be non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’) countries. Import statistics 

from countries that the Department has 

determined to be countries which 

subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, 

Korea, Thailand, and India) and imports 

from unspecified countries also were 

excluded in the calculation of the 

average value. See CTVs from the PRC, 

69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price index adjustors to inflate 

or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate 

values that are not contemporaneous 

with the POR using the wholesale price 

index for the subject country. See Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Hand Trucks 

and Certain Parts Thereof from the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 29509 

(May 24, 2004). However, in this case, 

a wholesale price index was not 

available for Bangladesh. Therefore, 

where publicly available information 

contemporaneous with the POI with 

which to value factors could not be 

obtained, surrogate values were adjusted 

using the Consumer Price Index (‘‘CPI’’) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10697 

19The Vietnam-Wide entity includes Aquatic 

Products Trading Company, Seaprodex Hanoi, 

Kisimex, Nha Trang Company Limited, Nha Trang 

Fisheries Co. Ltd., Seaprodex, Sea Products Imports 

& Exports, Song Huong ASC Import-Export 

Company Ltd., Song Huong ASC Joint Stock 

Company, Viet Nhan Company, and V N Seafoods. 

rate for Bangladesh, or the Wholesale 

Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) for India or 

Indonesia (for certain surrogate values 

where Bangladeshi data could not be 

obtained), as published in the 

International Financial Statistics 

(‘‘IFS’’) of the International Monetary 

Fund (‘‘IMF’’). 

Certain surrogate values were 

calculated using data from the 2004 

Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh 

(‘‘Bangladesh Government Statistics’’), 

published by the Bangladesh Bureau of 

Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of 

Planning. The information represents 

cumulative values for the period of 

2004. Certain other Bangladeshi sources 

were used as well. See Factor Valuation 

Memo. The unit values were initially 

calculated in takas/unit. 

Bangladeshi and other surrogate 

values denominated in foreign 

currencies were converted to USD using 

the applicable average exchange rate 

based on exchange rate data from the 

Department’s Web site. 

Shrimp Value 

The value of the main input, head-on, 

shell-on (‘‘HOSO’’) shrimp, is an 

important factor of production in our 

dumping calculation as it accounts for 

a significant percentage of normal value. 

As a general matter, the Department 

prefers to use publicly available data to 

value surrogate values from the 

surrogate country to determine factor 

prices that, among other things 

represent a broad market average and 

are contemporaneous with the POR. The 

Respondents and the Petitioner have 

placed numerous Bangladeshi shrimp 

values on the record. In this case, the 

Department has determined that data 

contained in a study of the Bangladeshi 

shrimp industry published by the 

Network of Aquaculture Centres in 

Asia-Pacific (‘‘NACA’’), an 

intergovernmental organization 

affiliated with the UN’s Food and 

Agriculture Organization, is a suitable 

surrogate value for shrimp from the 

surrogate country, namely, Bangladesh. 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting the ‘‘best available 

information’’ for valuing FOPs, in 

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

Act, is to select, to the extent 

practicable, surrogate values which are: 

publicly available, product-specific, 

representative of a broad market 

average, tax-exclusive and 

contemporaneous with the POR. See 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Artist Canvas 

from the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 16116 (March 30, 2006) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. The data 

contained in the NACA study appear to 

satisfy these requirements. 

To value the by-products, the 

Department used a surrogate value for 

shrimp by-products based on a purchase 

price quote for wet shrimp shells from 

an Indonesian buyer of crustacean 

shells. Although we recognize this 

surrogate value is not from Bangladesh, 

the primary surrogate, this information 

represents the best information on the 

record and is being used for these 

preliminary results. This information is 

specific to the by-product in question, 

shrimp shells, whereas the Bangladeshi 

data on the record represent a basket 

category. See Factor Valuation Memo, at 

Exhibit 11. 

To value packing materials, we used 

UN ComTrade data as the primary 

source of Bangladeshi surrogate value 

data. 

To value factory overhead (‘‘FOH’’), 

Selling, General & Administrative 

(‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, and profit, we used 

the simple average of the 2004–2005 

and 2005–2006 financial statement of 

Apex Foods Limited (‘‘Apex’’), the 2005 

financial statement of Bionic Seafood 

Exports Limited, and the 2004–2005 

financial statement of Gemini Seafood 

Limited, all of which are Bangladeshi 

shrimp processors. See Factor Valuation 

Memo, at Exhibit 12. 

Preliminary Results of the Reviews 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period July 16, 

2004, through January 31, 2006: 

CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER

SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted-average 

margin (percent) 

Produced and Exported by Grobest.1.08. 

Fish One ................... 0.01 (de minimis). 

Nha Trang Fisco ....... 4.57. 

Bac Lieu Fisheries .... 4.57. 

Cam Ranh Seafoods 4.57. 

Incomfish ................... 4.57. 

Vietnam-Wide Rate 19 25.76. 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments, may be filed 

no later than 37 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Requests should contain the 

following information: (1) The party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

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

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If we receive a 

request for a hearing, we plan to hold 

the hearing seven days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review and 

new shipper reviews, which will 

include the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such comments, 

within 120 days of publication of these 

preliminary results, pursuant to section 

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

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

the Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific (or customer) ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries covered 

by this review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of these 

new shipper reviews for all shipments 

of subject merchandise from Grobest 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10698 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

1This figure does not include the company for 

which the Department is rescinding the 

administrative review. See ‘‘Partial Rescission of 

Review’’ section for further discussion. 

2The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee. 

publication date, as provided by section 

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

merchandise produced and exported by 

Grobest, the cash-deposit rate will be 

that established in these final results of 

reviews and (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by Grobest, but manufactured 

by any other party, the cash deposit rate 

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

percent). 

Further, the following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of the 

administrative review for shipments of 

the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date of the final results, as provided by 

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

subject merchandise exported by Fish 

One, the cash-deposit rate will be that 

established in these final results of 

review; (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

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

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other 

Vietnam exporters of subject 

merchandise, which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

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

non-Vietnam exporters of subject 

merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the Vietnam 

exporter that supplied that exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review, the new 

shipper reviews and this notice are in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 

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

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

352.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

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

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–331–802 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Ecuador: Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador 

with respect to 23 companies.1 The 

respondents which the Department 

selected for individual review are 

OceanInvest, S.A. (OceanInvest) and 

Promarisco, S.A. (Promarisco). The 

respondents which were not selected for 

individual review are listed in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. This is the first 

administrative review of this order. The 

period of review (POR) covers August 4, 

2004, through January 31, 2006. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by OceanInvest and Promarisco 

have been made below normal value 

(NV). In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual review, we have 

preliminarily determined a weighted–

average margin for those companies that 

were not selected for individual review 

but were responsive to the Department’s 

requests for information. For those 

companies which were not responsive 

to the Department’s requests for 

information, we have preliminarily 

assigned to them a margin based on 

adverse facts available (AFA). 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

David Goldberger or Gemal Brangman, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration–Room B099, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4136 or (202) 482–3773, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Ecuador, 70 FR 5156 

(February 1, 2005) (Shrimp Order). On 

February 1, 2006, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador 

for the period August 4, 2004, through 

January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On 

February 28, 2006, the petitioner2

submitted a letter timely requesting that 

the Department conduct an 

administrative review of the sales of 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp made 

by numerous companies during the 

POR, pursuant to section 751(a) of the 

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

and in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b)(1). Also, on February 28, 

2006, the Department received timely 

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

conduct an administrative review of the 

sales of certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp from the following producers/ 

exporters of subject merchandise: 

Empacadora del Pacifico S.A., 

Empacadora Dufer Cia. Ltda., 

Exporklore, S.A., Promarisco, and 

Sociedad Nacional de Galapagos C.A. 

On April 7, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review for 71 companies 

and requested that each provide data on 

the quantity and value of its exports of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR for mandatory 

respondent selection purposes. These 

companies are listed in the 

Department’s notice of initiation. See 

Notice of Initiation of Administrative 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and 

Thailand, 71 FR 17819 (April 7, 2006) 

(Notice of Initiation). 

During the period April 27, 2006, 

through June 13, 2006, we received 

responses to the Department’s quantity 

and value questionnaire from 59 

companies. A number of these 

companies reported that their names 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES