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
10670 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

2The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee. 

3We note that we initiated a review on six of 

these companies (i.e., Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd., 

Kingfisher Holdings Limited, Klang Co., Ltd, InterOceanic Resources Co., Ltd., Narong Seafood Co., 

Ltd., Sea Bonanza Foods Co., Ltd.) as if they were 

two different entities based on the two different 

addresses on the record for each company. 

However, we have determined, based on the 

responses submitted by these companies, that each 

comprises a single entity with two different 

addresses. 

4As discussed below, for some of these 

companies, the petitioner subsequently withdrew 

its request for review. 

Luck Product Co., Ltd. (Good Luck 

Product), Pakfood Public Company 

Limited and its affiliated subsidiaries, 

Asia Pacific (Thailand) Company 

Limited, Chaophyraya Cold Storage 

Company Limited, Okeanos Company 

Limited, and Takzin Samut Company 

Limited (collectively ‘‘Pakfood’’), and 

Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Thai 

I-Mei). 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 

review covers the period August 4, 

2004, through January 31, 2006. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

were made by Good Luck Product, 

Pakfood, and Thai I-Mei below normal 

value (NV). In addition, based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual review, we have 

preliminarily determined a weightedaverage 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. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina 

Itkin or Alice Gibbons, 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) 

482–0656 or (202) 482–0498, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand. See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 

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 

Thailand for the period August 4, 2004, 

through January 31, 2006. See 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 5239 

(Feb. 1, 2006). On February 28, 2006, 

the petitioner 2 submitted a letter timely 

requesting that the Department conduct 

an administrative review of the sales of 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp made 

by numerous companies during the 

period of review (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 requests to conduct an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the 

following producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise during the POR in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b)(2): 

Kitchens of the Ocean (Thailand), Ltd., 

Pakfood, Thai I-Mei, Thai Union Frozen 

Products and Thai Union Seafood 

(collectively, ‘‘Thai Union’’), and Union 

Frozen Products (UFP). 

On April 7, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review for 145 

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, 2006, 

through July 10, 2006, we received 

responses to the Department’s Q&V 

questionnaire from 106 companies.3 We 

were unable to locate six companies, 

and we did not receive responses to this 

questionnaire from the remaining 

companies.4 For further discussion, see 

the ‘‘Application of Facts Available’’

section of this notice. 

Based upon our consideration of the 

responses to the Q&V questionnaire 

received 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 Thailand during the POR, 

Good Luck Product, Pakfood, and Thai 

I-Mei, 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 

Thailand: Selection of Respondents,’’

dated July 11, 2006. On this same date, 

we issued the antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Good Luck Product, 

Pakfood, and Thai I-Mei. 

On July 20, 2006, we published a 

notice rescinding the administrative 

review with respect to 112 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 

Thailand; Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 41200 (July 20, 2006) 

(Partial Rescission Notice). See also, the 

Memorandum to the File from Brianne 

Riker entitled ‘‘Intent to Rescind in Part 

the Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Thailand,’’ dated June 22, 2006. 

On August 3, 2006, we published a 

notice amending the partial rescission of 

the administrative review to correct a 

typographical error. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand; 

Corrected Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 44017 (Aug. 3, 2006). 

We received responses to section A of 

the questionnaire from Pakfood on 

August 8, 2006, and from Good Luck 

Product and Thai I-Mei on August 16, 

2006. 

On August 25, 2006, the Department 

postponed the preliminary results in 

this review until no later than February 

28, 2007. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, the People’s Republic of 

China, and Thailand: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of the First 

Administrative Reviews and New 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10671 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 50387 (Aug. 25, 

2006). 

On August 29, 2006, the petitioner 

submitted comments regarding home 

market viability with respect to Good 

Luck Product and Pakfood. 

We received responses to sections B 

and C of the questionnaire from Pakfood 

and Good Luck Product on September 1 

and 5, 2006, respectively. In addition, 

we received a response to sections C 

and D of the questionnaire from Thai IMei on September 5, 2006. 

On September 8 and 13, 2006, 

Pakfood and Good Luck Product, 

respectively, responded to the 

petitioner’s comments regarding home 

market viability. For further discussion, 

see ‘‘Home Market Viability and 

Selection of Comparison Markets’’

section of this notice. 

On September 14, 2006, we published 

an additional notice amending the 

partial rescission of the administrative 

review to correct a typographical error. 

See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Thailand; Corrected Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 54268 

(Sept. 14, 2006). 

We received comments from the 

petitioner on September 15, 2006, 

regarding the application of the 

multinational corporation (MNC) 

provision in section 773(d) of the Act 

with respect to Thai I-Mei. 

On September 19, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental sales questionnaire to 

Pakfood. 

On September 20, 2006, the petitioner 

requested that the Department initiate a 

sales-below-cost investigation of 

Pakfood. 

On September 21, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental sales questionnaire to 

Thai I-Mei. 

On September 26, 2006, Thai I-Mei 

submitted a response to the petitioner’s 

comments regarding the application of 

the MNC provision in section 773(d) of 

the Act with respect to Thai I-Mei. 

On September 27, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental sales questionnaire to 

Good Luck Product. 

We initiated a sales-below-cost 

investigation for Pakfood on October 3, 

2006. See the Memorandum to James 

Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 

Operations, from The Team entitled, 

‘‘Petitioner’s Allegation of Sales Below 

the Cost of Production for Pakfood 

Company Limited’’ (Pakfood Cost 

Allegation). 

We received Pakfood’s supplemental 

response on October 17, 2006. Also on 

October 17, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental cost questionnaire to Thai 

I-Mei. 

We received supplemental sales 

responses from Thai I-Mei and Good 

Luck Product on October 23 and 26, 

2006, respectively. 

On October 27, 2006, the petitioner 

requested that the Department initiate a 

sales-below-cost investigation of Good 

Luck Product. This investigation for 

Good Luck Product was initiated on 

October 30, 2006. See the Memorandum 

to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations from The Team 

entitled, ‘‘Petitioner’s Allegation of 

Sales Below the Cost of Production for 

Good Luck Product Co., Ltd.’’ (Good 

Luck Product Cost Allegation). 

Pakfood submitted a response to 

section D of the questionnaire on 

November 2, 2006. 

On November 14, 2006, we issued a 

second sales supplemental 

questionnaire to Good Luck Product. 

We received a response to the 

supplemental cost questionnaire from 

Thai I-Mei on November 15, 2006. 

On November 16, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental cost questionnaire to 

Pakfood. 

We received a second supplemental 

sales response, as well as a response to 

section D of the questionnaire from 

Good Luck Product on November 22 

and 30, 2006, respectively. 

On December 7, 2006, we issued a 

second sales supplemental 

questionnaire to Thai I-Mei. Also, on 

December 8, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental cost questionnaire to 

Good Luck Product. 

We received a supplemental cost 

response from Pakfood on December 14, 

2006. 

On December 21, 2006, we issued a 

supplemental cost questionnaire to Thai 

I-Mei. 

Sales verifications were conducted at 

Good Luck Product and Pakfood in 

December 2006. Sales verification 

reports were issued in January and 

February 2007 for Pakfood and Good 

Luck Product, respectively. 

On January 4, 2007, we received Good 

Luck Product’s supplemental cost 

response, as well as Thai I-Mei’s second 

supplemental sales response. In 

addition, we received a supplemental 

cost response from Thai I-Mei on 

January 10, 2006. 

On January 11, 2007, we issued a 

third supplemental sales questionnaire 

to Thai I-Mei. 

On January 19, 2007, based on the 

information on the record, we found 

that the MNC provision does not apply 

to Thai I-Mei. For further discussion, 

see the Memorandum to Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration from The Team 

entitled, ‘‘Application of the 

Multinational Corporation Provision,’’

dated January 19, 2007. 

We received Thai I-Mei’s third 

supplemental sales response on January 

23, 2007. Also on this date, 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). 

On January 24 and February 14, 2007, 

respectively, Pakfood and Good Luck 

Product submitted revised sales 

databases which incorporated certain 

minor corrections to these companies’

data discovered at verification. 

We conducted cost verifications at 

Good Luck Product and Pakfood in 

January and February 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,5

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). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10672 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

6We note that the response from this company 

indicated that its name is Siam Ocean Frozen Foods 

Co., Ltd. 

7We note that the response from this company 

indicated that its name is Tep Kinsho Foods Co., 

Ltd. 

8We note that the response from this company 

indicated that its name is Thai Agri Foods Co., Ltd. 

9We note that the response from this company 

indicated that its name is NR Instant Product Co., 

Ltd. (NR Instant Produce). 

10We note that the response from this company 

indicated that its name is Thai World Imports and 

Exports Co., Ltd. (Thai World). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS 

subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp-based 

product: (1) That is produced from fresh 

(or thawed-from-frozen) and peeled 

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

of rice or wheat flour of at least 95 

percent purity has been applied; (3) 

with the entire surface of the shrimp 

flesh thoroughly and evenly coated with 

the flour; (4) with the non-shrimp 

content of the end product constituting 

between four and 10 percent of the 

product’s total weight after being 

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

that is subjected to IQF freezing 

immediately after application of the 

dusting layer. Battered shrimp is a 

shrimp-based product that, when dusted 

in accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par-fried. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

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 companies 

did, in fact, have shipments or entries 

of subject merchandise that entered into 

the United States during the POR. See 

the Memorandum to the File from 

Brianne Riker, Analyst, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, entitled, ‘‘2004–2006 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand: Entry Documents from U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection,’’ dated 

July 31, 2006. From September 2006 to 

February 2007, we contacted seven of 

the eight companies in question and/or 

the exporters listed on the CBP entry 

documentation and requested that they 

provide information regarding the 

entries in question. We did not request 

information from one of the eight 

companies, Bangkok Dehydrated Marine 

Product Co., Ltd. (Bangkok Dehydrated 

Marine Product), because, based on CBP 

information, we found that the 

merchandise (i.e., dried shrimp) was not 

subject to the scope of the order. 

Based on either responses to the 

Department’s solicitation or the CBP 

information, we have preliminarily 

determined that entries at issue by four 

of the eight exporters/producers, 

Bangkok Dehydrated Marine Product, 

Siam Ocean,6 Tep Kinsho,7 and Thai 

Agri,8 were not reportable transactions 

because they were either: (1) Nonsubject merchandise (i.e., dried shrimp); 

(2) a non-paid sample; or, (3) reported 

by another company in its Q&V 

questionnaire. 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 

these companies. 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). 

One of the remaining exporters/ 

producers, Siam Intersea Co., Ltd., 

provided additional information to the 

Department indicating that it did, in 

fact, have a reportable transaction 

during the POR. Therefore, we are not 

rescinding the administrative review 

with respect to this company and are 

preliminarily assigning to it a weightedaverage margin calculated for the 

companies selected for individual 

review because, based on its response: 

(1) The discrepancy between the Q&V 

questionnaire response and the CBP 

data appeared to be an inadvertent 

oversight; (2) the quantity of the exports 

in question was so small that it would 

not have impacted our selection of 

respondents; and, (3) the company has 

been responsive to our requests for 

information. 

In addition, of the remaining two 

exporters/producers, NR Instant 

Produce 9 and Surapon Nichirei Foods 

Co., Ltd. (Surapon) stated that they did 

not report the entries in question 

because they claimed that the entries 

were of non-subject merchandise. 

Because these goods were entered into 

the United States as subject 

merchandise and there is insufficient 

evidence on the record to conclude 

otherwise, we preliminarily determine 

that the merchandise in question is 

included within the scope of the order. 

As a result, we are preliminarily 

assigning NR Instant Produce and 

Surapon the weighted-average margin 

calculated for the companies selected 

for individual review because these 

companies have been responsive to our 

requests for information. We may 

request additional information on the 

products in question. If we ultimately 

determine the merchandise is not 

subject to the order, we will rescind the 

administrative review with respect to 

NR Instant Produce and Surapon. 

Finally, the remaining exporter/ 

producer, Thai World,10 failed to 

respond to the Department’s request for 

additional information and, thus, we 

find that it failed to act to the best of its 

ability. Therefore, we are not rescinding 

the administrative review with respect 

to Thai World. For further information, 

see the ‘‘Application of Facts Available’’

section of this notice. 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10673 

11These companies are: Anglo-Siam Seafoods 

Co., Ltd. (Anglo-Siam Seafoods), Fortune Frozen 

Foods (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Fortune Frozen Foods), 

Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean), 

Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Li-Thai), Queen 

Marine Food Co., Ltd. (Queen Marine Foods), and 

Smile Heart Foods. 

Department requested that all 

companies subject to the 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 145 companies subject to 

review, 32 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, six of these companies also 

failed to respond to the Department’s 

second questionnaire.11 On January 31, 

2007, the Department placed 

documentation on the record confirming 

delivery of the questionnaires to each 

company. See the Memorandum to the 

File from Brianne Riker, Analyst, Office 

2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled, 

‘‘Placing Delivery Information on the 

Record of the 2004–2006 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review on Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand,’’ dated January 31, 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 

appropriate. 

Furthermore, one company, Thai 

World, claimed that it made no 

shipments of subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. Because 

we were unable to confirm the accuracy 

of Thai World’s claim with CBP, we 

requested further information/ 

clarification from it. However, Thai 

World failed to provide the requested 

information/clarification. By doing so, 

Thai World withheld requested 

information and significantly impeded 

the proceeding. Therefore, pursuant to 

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

the Department also preliminarily finds 

that the use of total facts available with 

respect to Thai World 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 

Anglo-Siam Seafoods, Fortune Frozen 

Foods, Gallant Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen 

Marine Food, Smile Heart Foods, and 

Thai World did not act to the best of 

their abilities in this proceeding, within 

the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, 

because they failed to respond to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

Therefore, an adverse inference is 

warranted in selecting from the facts 

otherwise available with respect to these 

companies. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 

1382–83. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA 

information derived from: (1) The 

petition; (2) the final determination in 

the investigation; (3) any previous 

review; or (4) any other information 

placed on the record. 

The Department’s practice, when 

selecting an AFA rate from among the 

possible sources of information, has 

been to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the 

statutory purposes of the adverse facts 

available rule to induce respondents to 

provide the Department with complete 

and accurate information in a timely 

manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain Steel 

Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 

Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(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 57.64 percent, which 

is the highest rate alleged in the 

petition, as adjusted at the initiation of 

the less-than-fair-value (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, 3881 (Jan. 27, 

2004). The Department finds that this 

rate is sufficiently high as to effectuate 

the purpose of the facts available rule 

(i.e., we find that this rate is high 

enough to encourage participation in 

future segments of this proceeding in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act). 

Information from prior segments of 

the proceeding constitutes secondary 

information and section 776(c) of the 

Act provides that the Department shall, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that secondary information from 

independent sources reasonably at its 

disposal. The Department’s regulations 

provide that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that 

the Department will satisfy itself that 

the secondary information to be used 

has probative value. See 19 CFR 

351.308(d); see also SAA at 870. To the 

extent practicable, the Department will 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information to be used. 

To corroborate the petition margin, 

we compared it to the transactionspecific rates calculated for each 

respondent in this review. We find that 

it is reliable and relevant because the 

petition rate fell within the range of 

individual transaction margins 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondents. See Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; Partial 

Rescission and Postponement of Final 

Results: Certain Softwood Lumber 

Products from Canada, 71 FR 33964, 

33968 (June 12, 2006). Therefore, we 

have determined that the 57.64 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10674 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

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 

falls within the range of transactionspecific margins for the mandatory 

respondents, we have preliminarily 

determined that the 57.64 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 Anglo-Siam 

Seafoods, Fortune Frozen Foods, Gallant 

Ocean, Li-Thai, Queen Marine Food, 

Smile Heart Foods, and Thai World. For 

company-specific information used to 

corroborate this rate, see the 

Memorandum to the File from Brianne 

Riker, 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 Thailand,’’ dated February 

28, 2007. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand to the United States were 

made at less than NV, we compared the 

export price (EP) or constructed export 

price (CEP) to the NV, as described in 

the ‘‘Constructed Export Price/Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Act, for Good Luck Product and 

Pakfood, 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. 

Regarding Thai I-Mei, we have 

determined that this company did not 

have a viable home or third country 

market during the POR. Therefore, as 

the basis for NV, we used constructed 

value (CV) when making comparisons to 

CEP for Thai I-Mei in accordance with 

section 773(a)(4) of the Act. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Good Luck Product and 

Pakfood 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 shrimp to sales of shrimp made 

in the home market for Good Luck 

Product and Pakfood within the 

contemporaneous window period, 

which extends from three months prior 

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

months after the sale. Where there were 

no sales of identical merchandise in the 

comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales of 

shrimp to sales of shrimp of the most 

similar foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. For Good Luck 

Product and Pakfood, where there were 

no sales of identical or similar 

merchandise, and for all Thai I-Mei 

sales, we made product comparisons 

using CV. 

With respect to sales comparisons 

involving broken shrimp, we compared 

Pakfood’s sales of broken shrimp in the 

home market to its sales of comparable 

quality shrimp to the United States. 

In making the product comparisons, 

we matched foreign like products based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by Good Luck Product and Pakfood 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. 

Constructed Export Price/Export Price 

For all U.S. sales made by Good Luck 

Product and Pakfood 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 

CEP methodology was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts of record. 

For U.S. sales made by Thai I-Mei, we 

calculated CEP in accordance with 

section 772(b) of the Act because the 

subject merchandise was sold for the 

account of Thai I-Mei by its subsidiary, 

Ocean Duke Corporation, in the United 

States to unaffiliated purchasers. 

A. Good Luck Product 

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 foreign inland freight expenses (i.e., 

freight from port to warehouse and 

freight from warehouse to the customer), 

foreign warehousing expenses, foreign 

brokerage and handling expenses, 

survey fees, and ocean freight expenses, 

where appropriate, in accordance with 

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

B. Pakfood 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for billing adjustments and 

discounts. We made deductions from 

the starting price for foreign inland 

freight expenses, foreign warehousing 

expenses, gate charges, survey fees, 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses, ocean freight expenses, U.S. 

brokerage expenses, and U.S. customs 

duties, where appropriate, in 

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

the Act. 

Regarding warehousing expenses, 

Pakfood reported that certain of these 

services were provided by an affiliated 

party. At verification, we tested the 

warehousing expenses charged by the 

affiliated party to determine whether the 

prices charged were at ‘‘arm’s length.’’

Where we found that the prices were 

not at arm’s length, we adjusted them to 

be equivalent to the market price. For 

further discussion, see the 

Memorandum to the File from Irina 

Itkin and Brianne Riker entitled, 

‘‘Verification of the Sales Response of 

Pakfood Public Company Limited in the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand’’ (‘‘Pakfood 

Verification Report’’), dated January 19, 

2007. 

C. Thai I-Mei 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP for those 

sales where the merchandise was first 

sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 

States before or after the date of 

importation by or for the account of the 

producer or exporter, or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter. For Thai I-Mei’s 

direct shipments, we used the earlier of 

shipment date from Thailand to the 

customer or the U.S. affiliate’s invoice 

date as the date of sale, in accordance 

with our practice. See e.g., 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 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (Dec. 23, 2004), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 10; Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Structural Steel Beams 

from Germany, 67 FR 35497 (May 20, 

2002), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10675 

12Where 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. 

We based CEP on the packed 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

purchasers in the United States. Where 

appropriate, we made adjustments for 

billing adjustments. We made 

deductions from the starting price for 

foreign inland freight, foreign inland 

insurance, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, ocean freight 

expenses, marine insurance expenses, 

U.S. brokerage and handling, U.S. 

customs duties, U.S. inland insurance, 

U.S. inland freight expenses, and U.S. 

warehousing expenses, where 

appropriate, in accordance with section 

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

with section 772(d)(1) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.402(b), we deducted those 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States, including direct selling 

expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses), 

and indirect selling expenses (including 

inventory carrying costs and other 

indirect selling expenses). 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we calculated an amount for profit 

to arrive at CEP. In accordance with 

section 772(f)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act, we 

based the CEP profit rate on Thai I-Mei’s 

financial statements because Thai I-Mei 

made sales during the POR solely to the 

United States. For further discussion, 

see the Memorandum to the File from 

Alice Gibbons, Senior Analyst, Office 2, 

AD/CVD Operations, entitled, 

‘‘Calculations Performed for Thai I-Mei 

Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. for the 

Preliminary Results in the 2004–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand,’’ dated February 

28, 2007. 

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. Based on this comparison, we 

determined that Good Luck Product and 

Pakfood had viable home markets 

during the POR. Consequently, we 

based NV on home market sales for 

these respondents. 

However, the petitioner has argued 

throughout this review that a large 

portion of Pakfood’s home market is not 

legitimate (therefore, making its home 

market not viable) because there is no 

significant market for frozen shrimp in 

Thailand. In response, Pakfood has 

argued that its reported home market 

sales are legitimate because they: (1) 

Were exclusively of foreign like 

product; (2) were for consumption in 

Thailand; and, (3) do not constitute a 

particular market situation. At 

verification we thoroughly examined 

this issue and confirmed Pakfood’s 

assertions regarding its home market 

sales. For further discussion, see the 

‘‘Pakfood Verification Report.’’

Further, we determined that Thai IMei’s aggregate volumes of home and 

third country market sales of the foreign 

like product were insufficient to permit 

a proper comparison with U.S. sales of 

the subject merchandise. Therefore, we 

used CV as the basis for calculating NV 

for Thai I-Mei, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(4) of the Act. 

B. Affiliated-Party Transactions and 

Arm’s-Length Test 

During the POR, Good Luck Product 

and Pakfood sold the foreign like 

product to affiliated customers. To test 

whether these sales were made at arm’slength prices, we compared, on a 

product-specific basis, the starting 

prices of sales to affiliated and 

unaffiliated customers, net of all 

discounts and rebates, movement 

charges, direct selling expenses, and 

packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.403(c) and in accordance with the 

Department’s practice, where the price 

to the affiliated party was, on average, 

within a range of 98 to 102 percent of 

the price of the same or comparable 

merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, 

we determined that sales made to the 

affiliated party were at arm’s length. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 

2002) (establishing that the overall ratio 

calculated for an affiliate must be 

between 98 percent and 102 percent in 

order for sales to be considered in the 

ordinary course of trade and used in the 

normal value calculation). Sales to 

affiliated customers in the comparison 

market that were not made at arm’slength prices were excluded from our 

analysis because we considered these 

sales to be outside the ordinary course 

of trade. See 19 CFR 351.102(b). 

C. 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 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),12 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 

we consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Act. See Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 

3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. sales of the foreign like 

product in the comparison market at the 

same LOT as the EP or CEP, the 

Department may compare the U.S. sale 

to sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market. In comparing EP or 

CEP sales at a different LOT in the 

comparison market, where available 

data make it practicable, we make an 

LOT adjustment under section 

773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, for CEP 

sales only, if the NV LOT is more 

remote from the factory than the CEP 

LOT and there is no basis for 

determining whether the difference in 

LOTs between NV and CEP affects price 

comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

section 773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate 

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from each 

respondent regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

foreign market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed by each respondent for each 

channel of distribution. Companyspecific LOT findings are summarized 

below. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10676 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

1. Good Luck Product 

Good Luck Product reported that it 

made EP sales in the U.S. market 

through a single channel of distribution 

(i.e., spot sales). We examined the 

selling activities performed for this 

channel and found that Good Luck 

Product performed the following selling 

functions: sales forecasting, order input/ 

processing, providing direct sales 

personnel, providing commission 

payments, claim services (i.e., billing 

adjustments), freight and delivery 

services, and packing. 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 Good Luck 

Product performed sales and marketing, 

freight and delivery services, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

warranty and technical 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 home market, 

Good Luck Product made sales through 

the following channels of distribution: 

(1) Spot sales; (2) sales to a Thai retailer; 

and, (3) sales through retail 

arrangements. Good Luck Product stated 

that its home market sales were made at 

the same LOT, regardless of distribution 

channel. We examined the selling 

activities performed for spot sales and 

found that Good Luck Product 

performed the following selling 

functions: order input/processing, 

providing direct sales personnel, 

providing commission payment, claim 

services (i.e., return service), and freight 

and delivery services. Regarding sales 

both to the Thai retailer and through 

retail arrangements, we find that Good 

Luck Product performed the following 

sales activities: sales forecasting, sales 

promotion/advertising/trade fairs, 

packing, providing retail displays/ 

inventory maintenance, order input/ 

processing, providing direct sales 

personnel, providing rebates, claim 

services (i.e., return service), and freight 

and delivery services. Accordingly, 

based on the core selling functions, we 

find that Good Luck Product performed 

sales and marketing, freight and 

delivery services, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

warranty and technical services in the 

home market. Although Good Luck 

Product performed additional sales and 

marketing functions for its sales both to 

the Thai retailer and through retail 

arrangements that it did not perform for 

its spot sales, we did not find these 

differences to be material selling 

function distinctions significant enough 

to warrant a separate LOT in the home 

market. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

home market because Good Luck 

Product performed essentially the same 

selling functions for all home market 

sales. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the core selling functions performed for 

U.S. and home market customers do not 

differ significantly. Therefore, we 

determined that sales to the U.S. and 

home markets during the POR were 

made at the same LOT, and as a result, 

no LOT adjustment was warranted. 

2. Pakfood 

Pakfood reported that it made EP sales 

in the U.S. market through a single 

channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales 

to distributors). We examined the 

selling activities performed for this 

channel, and found that Pakfood 

performed the following selling 

functions: sales forecasting/market 

research, order processing, providing 

direct sales personnel, providing 

commission payments, sales promotion/ 

trade shows/advertising, customer 

contact, price negotiation, invoice 

issuance, payment receipt, delivery 

services, and packing. Accordingly, 

based on the core selling functions, we 

find that Pakfood 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 home market, 

Pakfood made sales to distributors, 

retailers, and end-users. Pakfood stated 

that its home market sales were made 

through a single channel of distribution, 

regardless of customer category. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for this channel, and found 

that Pakfood performed the following 

selling functions: sales forecasting/ 

market research, sales promotion/trade 

shows/advertising, customer contact, 

price negotiation, order processing, 

invoice issuance, delivery services, 

providing direct sales personnel, 

payment receipt, and packing. 

Accordingly, based on the core selling 

functions, we find that Pakfood 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing at the 

same relative level of intensity for all 

customers in the home market. Because 

all sales in the home market are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the home market. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the core selling functions performed for 

U.S. and home market customers are 

virtually identical. Therefore, we 

determined that sales to the U.S. and 

home markets during the POR were 

made at the same LOT, and as a result, 

no LOT adjustment was warranted. 

3. Thai I-Mei 

With respect to Thai I-Mei, this 

exporter had no viable home or third 

country market during the POR. 

Therefore, we based NV on CV. When 

NV is based on CV, the NV LOT is that 

of the sales from which we derive 

selling, general, and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses and profit. See Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Fresh Atlantic 

Salmon from Chile, 63 FR 2664 (Jan. 16, 

1998), unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Fresh Atlantic Salmon From 

Chile, 63 FR 31411 (June 9, 1998). In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.412(d), the 

Department will make its LOT 

determination under paragraph (d)(2) of 

this section on the basis of sales of the 

foreign like product by the producer or 

exporter. Because we based the selling 

expenses and profit for Thai I-Mei on 

the weighted-average selling expenses 

incurred and profits earned by the other 

respondents in the administrative 

review, we are able to determine the 

LOT of the sales from which we derived 

selling expenses and profit for CV. 

Thai I-Mei reported that it made sales 

through six channels of distribution in 

the United States; however, it stated that 

the selling activities it performed did 

not vary by channel of distribution. Thai 

I-Mei reported performing the following 

selling functions for sales to its U.S. 

affiliate: order input/processing, 

providing direct sales personnel, 

warranty service, freight and delivery 

services, and packing. Accordingly, 

based on the core selling functions, we 

find that Thai I-Mei performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery services, 

and warranty services for sales to its 

U.S. affiliate. Because Thai I-Mei’s 

selling activities did not vary by 

distribution channel, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

U.S. market. 

As noted above, we find that Good 

Luck Product and Pakfood performed 

the following core selling functions: 

sales and marketing, freight and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10677 

delivery services, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

warranty services. Further, although 

Good Luck Product and Pakfood 

performed certain sales and marketing 

functions (e.g., sales forecasting/market 

research, sales promotion/advertising/ 

trade fairs, and retail displays) and 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing functions that Thai I-Mei 

did not perform, we did not find these 

differences to be material selling 

function distinctions significant enough 

to warrant a separate LOT. Thus, we 

determine that the NV LOT for Thai IMei is the same as the LOT of Thai IMei’s CEP sales. Because Good Luck 

Product and Pakfood only made sales at 

one LOT in their home markets, and 

there is no additional information on 

the record that would allow for an LOT 

adjustment, we determine that no LOT 

adjustment is warranted for Thai I-Mei. 

Regarding the CEP-offset provision, as 

described above, it is appropriate 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. Because we 

find that no difference in LOTs exists, 

we do not find that a CEP offset is 

warranted for Thai I-Mei. 

D. 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 Good Luck 

Product’s and Pakfood’s sales of frozen 

warmwater shrimp in the home market 

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 Good Luck 

Product’s and Pakfood’s sales were 

made at prices below their respective 

COPs. See the Good Luck Product Cost 

Allegation and the Pakfood Cost 

Allegation. 

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 home market selling 

expenses). 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by each respondent in its 

most recent supplemental section D 

questionnaire response for the COP 

calculation, except for the following 

instances where the information was not 

appropriately quantified or valued: 

a. Good Luck Product 

1. We adjusted Good Luck Product’s 

reported G&A expenses to exclude an 

offset claimed for trade fair income 

because the cost of the products sold 

was already deducted from the reported 

costs. 

2. We adjusted the cost of sales 

denominator used to calculate the G&A 

and financial expense ratios to deduct 

certain shrimp purchases that were 

erroneously double-booked by Good 

Luck Product and removed from the 

reported costs. 

3. Good Luck Product did not remove 

packing costs from the denominator 

used to calculate the G&A and financial 

expense ratios. Therefore, we applied 

these rates to the reported cost of 

manufacturing, including packing 

expenses. 

Our revisions to Good Luck Product’s 

COP data are discussed in the 

Memorandum from Christopher Zimpo, 

Accountant, to Neal Halper, Director, 

Office of Accounting, entitled ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results—Good Luck 

Product Co., Ltd.,’’ dated February 28, 

2007. 

b. Pakfood 

1. We adjusted the G&A expense 

ratios for Pakfood and its affiliates Asia 

Pacific (Thailand) Company Limited 

and Takzin Samut Company Limited to 

include a portion of the affiliate 

Okeanos Company Limited’s 

administrative expenses. 

2. We adjusted Pakfood’s G&A 

expense ratio to: (1) Exclude the offset 

for the gain on the sale of marketable 

securities; and, (2) include the G&A 

expenses and cost of sales of an 

affiliated producer in the numerator and 

denominator. In addition, we excluded 

an offset to Pakfood’s G&A expenses for 

rental income received from an 

affiliated producer. 

3. Because Pakfood had net financial 

income, we did not include an amount 

for financial expense for COP. This is in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice of determining that, when a 

company earns enough financial income 

that it recovers all of its financial 

expense, that company did not have a 

resulting cost for financing during that 

period. See Certain Steel Concrete 

Reinforcing Bars from Turkey; 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 26455, 

26460 (May 5, 2006); Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products From 

Canada, 70 FR 73437 (Dec. 12, 2005), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comments 9 and 25. 

Our revisions to Pakfood’s COP data 

are discussed in the Memorandum from 

Ernest Gziryan, Accountant, to Neal 

Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 

entitled ‘‘Cost and Constructed Value 

Calculation Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Results—Pakfood Public 

Company Limited,’’ dated February 28, 

2007. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product-specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weightedaverage COP to the home market sales 

of the foreign like product, as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order 

to determine whether the sale prices 

were below the COP. For purposes of 

this comparison, we used COP exclusive 

of selling and packing expenses. The 

prices (inclusive of billing adjustments, 

where appropriate) were exclusive of 

any applicable movement charges, 

rebates, discounts, and 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 

Pursuant to section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) of 

the Act, where less than 20 percent of 

a respondent’s sales of a given product 

were at prices less than the COP, we did 

not disregard any below-cost sales of 

that product because we determined 

that the below-cost sales were not made 

in ‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of a respondent’s sales 

of a given product during the POR were 

at prices less than COP, we determined 

that such sales have been made in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ See section 

773(b)(2)(C) of the Act. Further, the 

sales were made within an extended 

period of time, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(2)(B) of the Act, because 

we examined below-cost sales occurring 

during the entire POR. In such cases, 

because we compared prices to PORaverage costs, we also determined that 

such sales were not made at prices 

which would permit recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time, 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) 

of the Act. 

We found that, for certain specific 

products, more than 20 percent of Good 

Luck Product’s and Pakfood’s 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10678 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

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

Act. 

For those U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise for which there were no 

useable home market sales in the 

ordinary course of trade, we compared 

EPs to 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. Good Luck Product 

We based NV for Good Luck Product 

on delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers in the home market or prices 

to affiliated customers in the home 

market that were determined to be at 

arm’s length. We made adjustments, 

where appropriate, to the starting price 

for discounts and rebates. We made 

deductions, where appropriate, from the 

starting price for inland freight expenses 

and warehousing expenses, under 

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

We made adjustments for differences 

in costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.411. In addition, we made 

adjustments under section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410 for differences in circumstances 

of sale for imputed credit expenses and 

bank charges. 

Regarding credit expenses, Good Luck 

Product reported that it had not 

received full payment for certain home 

market and U.S. sales. Consequently, for 

the unpaid portion of these sales, we 

used a payment date of February 28, 

2007 (i.e., the date of the preliminary 

results), and recalculated imputed credit 

expenses accordingly. 

We also made adjustments in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for 

indirect selling expenses incurred on 

comparison-market or U.S. sales where 

commissions were granted on sales in 

one market but not the other. 

Specifically, where commissions were 

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

comparison market, we made a 

downward adjustment to NV for the 

lesser of: (1) The amount of commission 

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

amount of indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the comparison market. If 

commissions were granted in the 

comparison market but not in the U.S. 

market, we made an upward adjustment 

to NV following the same methodology. 

Finally, we deducted home market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with sections 

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

2. Pakfood 

We based NV for Pakfood on exfactory or delivered prices to 

unaffiliated customers in the home 

market or prices to affiliated customers 

in the home market that were 

determined to be at arm’s length. We 

made deductions, where appropriate, 

from the starting price for inland freight 

and warehousing expenses, under 

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

Regarding warehousing expenses, 

Pakfood reported that certain of these 

services were provided by an affiliated 

party. At verification, we tested the 

warehousing expenses charged by the 

affiliated party to determine whether the 

prices charged were at ‘‘arm’s length.’’

Where we found that the prices were 

not at arm’s length, we adjusted them to 

be equivalent to the market price. For 

further discussion, see the ‘‘Pakfood 

Verification Report.’’

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 imputed credit expenses and 

bank charges. We also made 

adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses 

incurred on comparison-market or U.S. 

sales where commissions were granted 

on sales in one market but not the other. 

Specifically, where commissions were 

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

comparison market, we made a 

downward adjustment to NV for the 

lesser of: (1) The amount of commission 

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

amount of indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the comparison market. 

We also deducted home market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with section 

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

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 

Pakfood and Good Luck Product 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. For 

Thai I-Mei, in accordance with section 

773(a)(4) of the Act, we based NV on CV 

because there was no viable home or 

third country market. 

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 Good Luck Product 

and Pakfood, we calculated the cost of 

materials and fabrication based on the 

methodology described in the ‘‘Cost of 

Production Analysis’’ section, above, 

and we based SG&A and profit for each 

respondent on the actual amounts 

incurred and realized by it in 

connection with the production and sale 

of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the home market, in 

accordance with section 773(e)(2)(A) of 

the Act. For comparisons to Good Luck 

Product’s and Pakfood’s EP, we made 

circumstances-of-sale adjustments by 

deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred on home market sales from, 

and adding U.S. direct selling expenses, 

to CV, in accordance with section 

773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410. 

For Thai I-Mei, in accordance with 

section 773(e) of the Act, we calculated 

CV based on the sum of Thai I-Mei’s 

cost of materials and fabrication for the 

foreign like product, plus amounts for 

SG&A, profit, and U.S. packing costs. 

The Department relied on COP data 

submitted by Thai I-Mei in its most 

recent supplemental section D 

questionnaire response for the COP 

calculation, except for the calculation of 

the company’s G&A and financial 

expense ratios. For these ratios, we 

adjusted the reported data to include 

inventory changes in the denominator. 

Our revisions to Thai I-Mei’s COP data 

are discussed in the Memorandum from 

Oh Ji Young, Accountant, to Neal 

Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 

entitled, ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary 

Results—Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., 

Ltd.,’’ dated February 28, 2007. 

Because Thai I-Mei does not have a 

viable comparison market, the 

Department cannot determine profit 

under section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act, 

which requires sales by the respondent 

in question in the ordinary course of 

trade in a comparison market. Likewise, 

because Thai I-Mei does not have sales 

of any product in the same general 

category of products as the subject 

merchandise, we are unable to apply 

alternative (i) of section 773(e)(2)(B) of 

the Act. Therefore, we calculated Thai 

I-Mei’s CV profit and selling expenses 

based on alternative (ii) of this section, 

in accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Act. As a result, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10679 

13This rate is based on the weighted average of 

the margins calculated for those companies selected 

for individual review, excluding de minimis 

margins or margins based entirely on AFA. 

we calculated Thai I-Mei’s CV profit and 

selling expenses as a weighted-average 

of the profit and selling expenses 

incurred by the two other respondents 

in this administrative review. 

Specifically, we calculated the 

weighted-average profit and selling 

expenses incurred on home market sales 

by Good Luck Product and Pakfood. 

For comparisons to Thai I-Mei’s CEP, 

we deducted from CV direct selling 

expenses incurred on Good Luck 

Product’s and Pakfood’s home market 

sales, in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(ii)(B) of the Act. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted-average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

August 4, 2004, through January 31, 

2006, as follows: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Good Luck Product Co., Ltd ......... 10.75 

Pakfood Public Company Limited/ 

Okeanos Company Limited/ 

Takzin Samut Company Limited 4.29 

Thai I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd 2.34 

Review-Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies: 13

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Crystal Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ..... 4.24 

Far East Cold Storage Co., Ltd .... 4.24 

Inter-Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd 4.24 

Kitchens of the Oceans (Thailand), Ltd ................................... 4.24 

Lee Heng Seafood Co., Ltd ......... 4.24 

Narong Seafood Co., Ltd ............. 4.24 

NR Instant Produce Co., Ltd ........ 4.24 

Pacific Queen Co., Ltd ................. 4.24 

Piti Seafood Co., Ltd .................... 4.24 

S&D Marine Products Co., Ltd ..... 4.24 

Siam Intersea Co., Ltd ................. 4.24 

Siamchai International Food Co., 

Ltd ............................................. 4.24 

SMP Food Product Co., Ltd ......... 4.24 

Surapon Nichirei Foods Co., Ltd .. 4.24 

Suratthani Marine Products Co., 

Ltd ............................................. 4.24 

AFA Rate Applicable to the Following 

Companies: 

Manufacturer/exporter Percent 

margin 

Anglo-Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd ..... 57.64 

Fortune Frozen Foods (Thailand) 

Co., Ltd ..................................... 57.64 

Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd 57.64 

Li-Thai Frozen Foods Co., Ltd ..... 57.64 

Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd ....... 57.64 

Smile Heart Foods ........................ 57.64 

Thai World Imports and Exports 

Co., Ltd ..................................... 57.64 

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 

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. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested must submit a written request 

to the Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Room B–099, within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice. Requests should contain: (1) The 

party’s name, address and telephone 

number; (2) the number of participants; 

and, (3) a list of issues to be discussed. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in 

the hearing will be limited to those 

raised in the respective case briefs. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of issues raised 

in any written briefs, not later than 120 

days after the date of publication of this 

notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) 

of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

For certain sales made by Pakfood and 

all of Thai I-Mei’s sales, we note that 

these companies reported the entered 

value for the U.S. sales in question. We 

will calculate importer-specific ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of the examined sales for that 

importer. 

For all of Good Luck Product’s and 

certain of Pakfood’s sales, we note that 

these companies did not report the 

entered value for the U.S. sales in 

question. We will calculate importerspecific per-unit duty assessment rates 

by aggregating the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales and dividing this 

amount by the total quantity of those 

sales. To determine whether the duty 

assessment rates are de minimis, in 

accordance with the requirement set 

forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will 

calculate importer-specific ad valorem 

ratios based on the estimated entered 

value. 

For the responsive companies which 

were not selected for individual review, 

we will calculate an assessment rate 

based on the weighted-average of the 

cash deposit rates calculated for the 

companies selected for individual 

review excluding any which are de 

minimis or determined entirely on AFA. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis (i.e., at or 

above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1). The final results of this 

review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate if there is no rate for the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10680 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. See ‘‘Partial 

Rescission of Review’’ section for further 

discussion. 

2The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee. 

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 5.95 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Shrimp Order. These requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

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. E7–4278 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–351–838] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Brazil: Preliminary Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil 

with respect to 11 companies.1 The 

respondents which the Department 

selected for individual review are 

Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda 

(‘‘Aquatica’’) and Comercio de Pescado 

Aracatiense Ltda. (‘‘Compescal’’). The 

respondents which were not selected for 

individual review are listed in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. This is the first 

administrative review of this order. The 

period of review (‘‘POR’’) covers August 

4, 2004, through January 31, 2006. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by Aquatica and Compescal have 

been made below normal value (‘‘NV’’). 

In addition, we have preliminarily 

determined a weighted–average margin 

for those companies that were not 

selected for individual review but were 

responsive to the Department’s requests 

for information based on the 

preliminary results for the respondents 

selected for individual review. For those 

companies which were not responsive 

to the Department’s requests for 

information, we have preliminarily 

assigned to them a margin based on 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’). 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

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

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Johnson or Rebecca Trainor, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration–Room B099, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4929 or (202) 482–4007, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

warmwater shrimp from Brazil. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

70 FR 5143 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘Shrimp 

Order’’). On February 1, 2006, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from Brazil 

for the period August 4, 2004, through 

January 31, 2006. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). On 

February 28, 2006, the 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 a timely 

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

conduct an administrative review of the 

sales of certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp from the following affiliated 

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise: CIDA Central De 

Industrializacao E Distribuicao De 

Alimentos Ltda. and Produmar Cia 

Exportadora de Produtos Do Mar 

(collectively ‘‘CIDA’’). 

On April 7, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review for 50 companies 

and requested that each provide data on 

the quantity and value of its exports of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR for mandatory 

respondent selection purposes. These 

companies are listed in the 

Department’s notice of initiation. See 

Notice of Initiation of Administrative 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Brazil, Ecuador, India and 

Thailand, 71 FR 17819 (April 7, 2006) 

(‘‘Notice of Initiation’’). 

During the period April 28 through 

June 19, 2006, we received responses to 

the Department’s quantity and value 

questionnaire from 19 companies. We 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES