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entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 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
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10681 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

did not receive responses to this 

questionnaire from the remaining 

companies. 

Subsequently, the Department 

received withdrawal requests with 

respect to many of the companies. 

However, based upon our consideration 

of the responses to the quantity and 

value questionnaire and the resources 

available to the Department, we 

determined that it was not practicable to 

examine all exporters/producers of 

subject merchandise for which a review 

request remained. As a result, on July 

11, 2006, we selected the two largest 

remaining producers/exporters by 

export volume of certain frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Brazil during 

the POR, Aquatica and Compescal, as 

the mandatory respondents in this 

review. See Memorandum to Stephen J. 

Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, from Irene 

Darzenta Tzafolias, Acting Director, 

Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, entitled 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Brazil: Selection of 

Respondents,’’ dated July 11, 2006. On 

this same date, we issued the 

antidumping questionnaire to Aquatica 

and Compescal. 

On July 20, 2006, we published a 

notice rescinding the administrative 

review with respect to 34 companies for 

which the requests for an administrative 

review were withdrawn in a timely 

manner, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(1). See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil; Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; 71 FR 41199 

(July 20, 2006). 

We received responses to section A of 

the questionnaire from Aquatica and 

Compescal on August 15, 2006. 

On August 25, 2006, the Department 

postponed the preliminary results in 

this review until no later than February 

28, 2007. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, the People’s Republic of 

China, and Thailand: Notice of 

Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of the First 

Administrative Reviews and New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 50387 (August 

25, 2006). 

On August 31, 2006, the petitioner 

submitted comments regarding third 

country market selection with respect to 

Aquatica and the possible existence of 

a ‘‘particular market situation’’ with 

respect to Compescal. 

We received responses to sections B 

and C of the questionnaire from 

Compescal and Aquatica on September 

7 and 8, 2006, respectively. 

We issued supplemental 

questionnaires to Aquatica and 

Compescal on September 28, 2006, and 

received responses on October 20, 2006. 

On November 1, 2006, the petitioner 

submitted additional comments on the 

appropriate comparison markets to be 

used for Aquatica and Compescal. 

On September 20, 2006, the petitioner 

requested that the Department initiate a 

sales–below-cost investigation of 

Aquatica. On November 6, 2006, we 

initiated this investigation. See 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from The Team entitled ‘‘Petitioners’

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for Aquatica Maricultura do 

Brasil Ltda.,’’ dated November 6, 2006. 

Also on November 6, 2006, we 

determined that France constitutes the 

appropriate comparison market with 

respect to Aquatica. See Memorandum 

to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations, from The Team 

entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil 

- Selection of the Appropriate Third 

Country Market for Aquatica,’’ dated 

November 6, 2006. 

On November 9, 2006, we found that 

a particular market situation does not 

exist which would render Compescal’s 

home market inappropriate for purposes 

of determining NV in this review. See 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

entitled ‘‘Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: 

Home Market as Appropriate 

Comparison Market for Comercio de 

Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,’’ dated 

November 9, 2006. 

On November 17, 2006, the petitioner 

requested that the Department initiate a 

sales–below-cost investigation of 

Compescal. This investigation was 

initiated on November 28, 2006. See 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from The Team entitled ‘‘Petitioners’

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for Comercio de Pescado 

Aracatiense Ltda.,’’ dated November 28, 

2006. 

Aquatica and Compescal submitted 

responses to section D of the 

questionnaire on December 6 and 28, 

2006, respectively. We issued a section 

D supplemental questionnaire to 

Aquatica on December 21, 2006, and to 

Compescal on January 10, 2007. On 

January 11 and 30, 2007, we received 

responses to these supplemental 

questionnaires from Aquatica and 

Compescal, respectively. We issued a 

second section D supplemental 

questionnaire to Aquatica on January 

18, 2007, and received a response on 

February 1, 2007. 

On January 23, 2007, we published a 

correction to the scope of the order in 

which we clarified that the scope does 

not cover warmwater shrimp in non–

frozen form. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, Thailand, the People’s 

Republic of China and the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam; Amended Orders, 

72 FR 2857 (January 23, 2007). 

Verifications were conducted in 

January and February 2007. Sales 

verification reports were issued on 

February 23, 2007. Cost verification 

reports will be issued following the 

preliminary results. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild–caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm–raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head–on or head–off,3

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

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild–

caught warmwater species include, but 

are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp 

(Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 

(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn 

(Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10682 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

4Based on information submitted in Aquatica’s 

questionnaire responses, as well as information 

obtained at verification, we have accepted 

Aquatica’s claim that its operations are intertwined 

with those of Aquafeed such that they essentially 

function as one company. 

5This figure does not include those companies 

for which the Department rescinded this 

administrative review in July 2006, as well as the 

companies for which we are preliminarily 

rescinding this administrative review, as discussed 

above. 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 

Excluded from the scope are: 1) 

breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell–on or peeled 

(HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and 8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product: 1) that is produced from fresh 

(or thawed–from-frozen) and peeled 

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

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; 3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

flour; 4) with the non–shrimp content of 

the end product constituting between 

four and 10 percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and 5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par–fried. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

On July 20, 2006, we published a 

notice rescinding the administrative 

review with respect to 34 companies for 

which the petitioner and CIDA timely 

withdrew their requests for an 

administrative review, and because no 

other interested party requested a 

review for these companies, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 

See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Brazil; Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review; 71 FR 41199 (July 20, 2006). 

Artico was inadvertently omitted from 

the list of companies for which the 

administrative review was rescinded in 

July 2006. Artico has the same address 

as Ortico, which was included in our 

earlier rescission notice. Accordingly, 

we consider Artico and Ortico to be the 

same company. 

In addition, as a result of additional 

research, we confirmed that Marine 

Maricultura do Nordeste SA, Marine 

Maricultura do Nordeste and Marine 

Maricultura Nordeste SA are, in fact, the 

same company, and that the correct 

company name is Marine Maricultura 

do Nordeste SA, which is no longer in 

business. We rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to 

Marine Maricultura do Nordeste in July 

2006, as a result of the petitioner’s 

timely withdrawal of the request for 

review of this company. 

For these reasons, we are also 

preliminarily rescinding this review 

with respect to Artico, Marine 

Maricultura do Nordeste SA and Marine 

Maricultura Nordeste SA. 

Aquatica’s Affiliated Parties 

Aquatica has three affiliates involved 

in the production and sale of the subject 

merchandise, two of which exported 

shrimp to the United States during the 

POR. The third affiliate, Aquafeed, 

which produces feed for larva and 

shrimp and also sold some frozen 

shrimp produced by Aquatica to France 

during the POR, together with Aquatica, 

submitted a consolidated questionnaire 

response to the Department.4 In its 

August 15 and October 20, 2006, 

questionnaire responses, Aquatica 

provided information regarding the 

relationship between Aquatica and its 

two affiliated producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise at issue during the 

POR. After an analysis of this 

information, as well as information 

obtained as a result of additional 

research, we preliminarily determine 

that, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(f), it is not appropriate to 

collapse these affiliated entities for 

purposes of this review because: 1) there 

is no common ownership among the 

companies; 2) no managerial employees 

or board members of one firm are 

associated with any of the other firms; 

3) there is no sharing of sales 

information, involvement in pricing and 

production decisions, sharing of 

facilities or employees, or significant 

transactions between and among the 

affiliated producers. Thus, there is no 

potential for manipulation of price or 

production if Aquatica and its affiliates 

do not receive the same antidumping 

duty rate. For further discussion, see the 

Memorandum from Kate Johnson and 

Rebecca Trainor, Senior Analysts, Office 

2, to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, 

entitled, ‘‘Whether to Collapse Aquatica 

Maricultura do Brasil Ltda. with Its 

Affiliated Producers/Exporters in the 

2004–2006 Administrative Review on 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil,’’ dated February 28, 2007. 

Application of Facts Available 

Section 776(a) of the Act provides that 

the Department will apply ‘‘facts 

otherwise available’’ if, inter alia, 

necessary information is not available 

on the record or an interested party: 1) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; 2) fails to 

provide such information within the 

deadlines established, or in the form or 

manner requested by the Department, 

subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of 

section 782 of the Act; 3) significantly 

impedes a proceeding; or 4) provides 

such information, but the information 

cannot be verified. 

As discussed in the ‘‘Background’’

section, above, in April 2006, the 

Department requested that all 

companies subject to review respond to 

the Department’s quantity and value 

questionnaire for purposes of mandatory 

respondent selection. The original 

deadline to file a response was April 28, 

2006. Of the 11 companies subject to 

review,5 two companies did not respond 

to the Department’s requests for 

information: SM Pescados Industria 

Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. and 

Valenca da Bahia Maricultura. 

Subsequently in May 2006, the 

Department issued letters to these 

companies affording them a second 

opportunity to submit a response to the 

Department’s quantity and value 

questionnaire. However, these 

companies also failed to respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire after the 

Department provided a second 

opportunity. By failing to respond to the 

Department’s quantity and value 

questionnaire, these companies 

withheld requested information and 

significantly impeded the proceeding. 

Thus, pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) 

and (C) of the Act, because these 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10683 

companies did not respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire, the 

Department preliminarily finds that the 

use of total facts available is 

appropriate. 

According to section 776(b) of the 

Act, if the Department finds that an 

interested party fails to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with requests for information, the 

Department may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from the facts otherwise 

available. See also Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Stainless Steel 

Bar from India, 70 FR 54023, 54025–26 

(September 13, 2005); and Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Final Negative 

Critical Circumstances: Carbon and 

Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from 

Brazil, 67 FR 55792, 55794–96 (August 

30, 2002). Adverse inferences are 

appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1, at 870 

(1994) (‘‘SAA’’), reprinted in 1994 

U.S.C.C.A.N. 4040, 4198–99. 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties; Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997); see also Nippon Steel 

Corp. v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 

1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon’’). 

We preliminarily find that SM Pescados 

Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. 

and Valenca da Bahia Maricultura SA 

did not act to the best of their abilities 

in this proceeding, within the meaning 

of section 776(b) of the Act, because 

they failed to respond to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

Therefore, an adverse inference is 

warranted in selecting from the facts 

otherwise available with respect to these 

companies. See Nippon, 337 F.3d at 

1382–83. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that the Department may use as AFA, 

information derived from: 1) the 

petition; 2) the final determination in 

the investigation; 3) any previous 

review; or 4) any other information 

placed on the record. The Department’s 

practice, when selecting an AFA rate 

from among the possible sources of 

information, has been to ensure that the 

margin is sufficiently adverse ‘‘as to 

effectuate the statutory purposes of the 

adverse facts available rule to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See, e.g., Certain 

Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from 

Turkey; Final Results and Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review in Part, 71 FR 65082, 65084 

(November 7, 2006). 

In order to ensure that the margin is 

sufficiently adverse so as to induce 

cooperation, we have preliminarily 

assigned a rate of 349 percent, which is 

the highest rate alleged in the petition. 

See Notice of Initiation of Antidumping 

Duty Investigations: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Brazil, Ecuador, India, Thailand, the 

People’s Republic of China and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

3876, 3881 (January 27, 2004). The 

Department finds that this rate is 

sufficiently high as to effectuate the 

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

we find that this rate is high enough to 

encourage participation in future 

segments of this proceeding in 

accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act). 

Information from prior segments of 

the proceeding constitutes secondary 

information and section 776(c) of the 

Act provides that the Department shall, 

to the extent practicable, corroborate 

that secondary information from 

independent sources reasonably at its 

disposal. The Department’s regulations 

provide that ‘‘corroborate’’ means that 

the Department will satisfy itself that 

the secondary information to be used 

has probative value. See 19 CFR 

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

extent practicable, the Department will 

examine the reliability and relevance of 

the information to be used. 

To corroborate the petition margin, 

we compared it to the transaction–

specific rates calculated for each 

respondent in this review. We find that 

it is reliable and relevant because the 

petition rate fell within the range of 

individual transaction margins 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondents. See Notice of Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review; Partial 

Rescission and Postponement of Final 

Results: Certain Softwood Lumber 

Products from Canada, 71 FR 33964, 

33968 (June 12, 2006). Therefore, we 

have determined that the 349 percent 

margin is appropriate as AFA and are 

assigning it to the uncooperative 

companies listed above. 

Further, the Department will consider 

information reasonably at its disposal as 

to whether there are circumstances that 

would render a margin inappropriate. 

Where circumstances indicate that the 

selected margin is not appropriate as 

AFA, the Department may disregard the 

margin and determine an appropriate 

margin. See, e.g., Fresh Cut Flowers 

from Mexico; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 22, 

1996) (where the Department 

disregarded the highest calculated 

margin as AFA because the margin was 

based on a company’s uncharacteristic 

business expense resulting in an 

unusually high margin). In the instant 

case, we examined whether any 

information on the record would 

discredit the selected rate as reasonable 

facts available and were unable to find 

any information that would discredit 

the selected AFA rate. 

Because we did not find evidence 

indicating that the selected margin is 

not appropriate and because this margin 

falls within the range of transaction–

specific margins for the mandatory 

respondents, we have preliminarily 

determined that the 349 percent margin, 

as alleged in the petition, is appropriate 

as AFA. We are assigning this rate to SM 

Pescados Industria Comercio E 

Exportacao Ltda. and Valenca da Bahia 

Maricultura SA. For company–specific 

information used to corroborate this 

rate, see the Memorandum to the File 

from Kate Johnson and Rebecca Trainor, 

Senior International Trade Compliance 

Analysts, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

entitled ‘‘Corroboration of Data 

Contained in the Petition for Assigning 

Facts Available Rates in the 2004–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Brazil,’’ dated February 28, 

2007. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp by Aquatica 

and Compescal to the United States 

were made at less than NV, we 

compared EP to the NV, as described in 

the ‘‘Export Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’

sections of this notice. 

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

Act, we compared the EPs of individual 

U.S. transactions to the weighted–

average NV of the foreign like product 

where there were sales made in the 

ordinary course of trade, as discussed in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’

section below. 

With respect to Compescal, we 

excluded certain home market sales 

from our analysis which we verified 

were either cancelled or outside the 

ordinary course of trade. See 

Memorandum to The File, from Kate 

Johnson and Rebecca Trainor entitled 

‘‘Calculation Memorandum for the 

Preliminary Results for Comercio de 

Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. 

(Compescal),’’ (‘‘Compescal Calculation 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10684 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

6Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling expenses, general and administrative 

(‘‘SG&A’’) expenses, and profit for CV, where 

possible. 

Memorandum’’) dated February 28, 

2007, for further discussion. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Aquatica and Compescal 

covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, to 

be foreign like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. 

sales to sales made in the home market 

for Compescal and France for Aquatica 

within the contemporaneous window 

period, which extends from three 

months prior to the month of the U.S. 

sale until two months after the sale. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the comparison market 

made in the ordinary course of trade to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales to sales of the most similar 

foreign like product made in the 

ordinary course of trade. In making the 

product comparisons, we matched 

foreign like products based on the 

physical characteristics reported by 

Aquatica and Compescal in the 

following order: cooked form, head 

status, count size, organic certification, 

shell status, vein status, tail status, other 

shrimp preparation, frozen form, 

flavoring, container weight, 

presentation, species, and preservative. 

With respect to sales comparisons 

involving broken shrimp, we compared 

Compescal’s sales of broken shrimp in 

the home market to its sales of 

comparable quality shrimp to the 

United States. As Aquatica did not make 

any sales of broken shrimp in its 

comparison market, we compared 

Aquatica’s U.S. sales of broken shrimp 

to constructed value (‘‘CV’’). 

Export Price 

For all U.S. sales made by Aquatica 

and Compescal, we used EP 

methodology, in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act, because the 

subject merchandise was sold directly to 

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States prior to importation and 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) 

methodology was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts of record. 

A. Aquatica 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight, 

insurance, foreign brokerage, port 

handling and warehousing expenses, 

where appropriate, in accordance with 

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

reported port handling expenses as 

direct selling expenses. We reclassified 

these expenses as movement expenses 

in accordance with our normal practice. 

Based on our sales verification 

findings, we made revisions to the 

insurance expense reported for certain 

U.S. sales. See Memorandum to The 

File, from Kate Johnson and Rebecca 

Trainor entitled ‘‘Aquatica Maricultura 

do Brasil Ltda., Preliminary Results 

Notes and Margin Calculation,’’ dated 

February 28, 2007, (‘‘Aquatica 

Calculation Memorandum’’) for further 

discussion. 

B. Compescal 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. We made deductions from the 

starting price for foreign inland freight, 

insurance, and port expenses, where 

appropriate, in accordance with section 

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

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and Selection 

of Comparison Markets 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

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

the Act. 

Because Compescal’s aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product was greater than 

five percent of its aggregate volume of 

U.S. sales for the subject merchandise, 

we determined that its home market was 

viable. Therefore, we used home market 

sales as the basis for NV in accordance 

with section 773(a)(1)(B) of the Act. See 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from The Team entitled ‘‘Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil: 

Home Market as Appropriate 

Comparison Market for Comercio de 

Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,’’ dated 

November 9, 2006. 

Furthermore, we determined that 

Aquatica’s aggregate volume of home 

market sales of the foreign like product 

was insufficient to permit a proper 

comparison with U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise. Therefore, with 

respect to Aquatica, we used sales to 

France, Aquatica’s largest third country 

market, as the basis for comparison–

market sales in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.404. See Memorandum to James 

Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 

Operations, from The Team entitled 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Brazil - Selection of the 

Appropriate Third Country Market for 

Aquatica,’’ dated November 6, 2006. 

B. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (‘‘LOT’’) 

as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 

different LOTs if they are made at 

different marketing stages (or their 

equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. Id.; See also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997) (‘‘Plate from South Africa’’). In 

order to determine whether the 

comparison sales were at different 

stages in the marketing process than the 

U.S. sales, we reviewed the distribution 

system in each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution), including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 

on either home market or third country 

prices),6 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 

we consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Act. See Micron 

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

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

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10685 

was practicable), the Department shall 

grant a CEP offset, as provided in 

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

from South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from each 

respondent regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

foreign market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed by each respondent for each 

channel of distribution. Company–

specific LOT findings are summarized 

below. 

1. Aquatica 

Aquatica reported that it made EP 

sales in the U.S. market through a single 

channel of distribution (i.e., directly to 

U.S. customers/distributors). We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for this channel and found 

that Aquatica performed the following 

selling functions: sales forecasting and 

strategic and economic planning, 

advertising and marketing, sales 

promotion, packing, inventory 

maintenance, order input/processing, 

guarantees, and invoicing. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

three core selling function categories for 

analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) 

inventory maintenance and 

warehousing; and, 3) warranty and 

technical support. Accordingly, based 

on the core selling functions, we find 

that Aquatica performed sales and 

marketing, inventory maintenance and 

warehousing, and warranty and 

technical support for U.S. sales. Because 

all sales in the United States are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the U.S. market. 

When NV is based on CV, as in this 

case, the NV LOT is that of the sales 

from which we derive SG&A expenses 

and profit. (See Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Fresh Atlantic Salmon 

from Chile, 63 FR 2664 (January 16, 

1998)). As discussed below, we based 

the CV selling expenses and profit on 

the weighted–average selling expenses 

incurred and profits earned by two 

respondents in the LTFV investigation. 

We are unable to determine that the 

LOT of the sales from which we derived 

selling expenses and profit for CV is 

different from the EP LOT. Further, 

because NV is based on CV, there is 

only one NV LOT, and there is 

insufficient information on the record 

that would enable us to determine that 

an LOT adjustment is warranted. 

Therefore, we have no basis upon which 

to make an LOT adjustment to NV. 

2. Compescal 

Compescal reported that it made EP 

sales in the U.S. market through a single 

channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales 

to distributors). We examined the 

selling activities performed for this 

channel, and found that Compescal 

performed the following selling 

functions: sales forecasting and 

strategic/economic planning, packing, 

verbal guarantees, freight and delivery 

to port, and invoicing. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

three core selling function categories for 

analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) 

freight and delivery services; and, 3) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, based on the core selling 

functions, we find that Compescal 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and warranty and 

technical support for U.S. sales. Because 

all sales in the United States are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to the home market, 

Compescal made sales to final 

consumers (restaurants and 

individuals). Compescal stated that its 

home market sales were made through 

four channels of distribution: 1) ex–

factory; 2) delivery to the Fortaleza 

business unit; 3) delivery to the 

Fortaleza business unit and then to the 

customer; and 4) delivery to the 

Fortaleza business unit and then to the 

airport. We examined the selling 

activities performed for these channels, 

and found that Compescal performed 

the following selling functions: packing, 

verbal guarantees, freight and delivery 

(excluding ex–factory sales), and 

invoicing. These selling activities can be 

generally grouped into three core selling 

function categories for analysis: 1) sales 

and marketing; 2) freight and delivery 

services; and, 3) warranty and technical 

support. Accordingly, based on the core 

selling functions, we find that 

Compescal performed sales and 

marketing and warranty and technical 

support for all home market sales, and 

freight and delivery services for certain 

home market sales. We do not find that 

the fact that freight and delivery 

services are not provided for one 

channel of distribution is sufficient to 

distinguish it as a separate LOT. 

Accordingly, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

home market. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the core selling functions performed for 

U.S. and home market customers are 

virtually identical. Therefore, we 

determined that sales to the U.S. and 

home markets during the POR were 

made at the same LOT, and as a result, 

no LOT adjustment was warranted. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

Based on our analysis of the 

petitioner’s allegations, we found that 

there were reasonable grounds to 

believe or suspect that Aquatica’s and 

Compescal’s sales of frozen warmwater 

shrimp in the third country and home 

market, respectively, were made at 

prices below their COP. Accordingly, 

pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we 

initiated sales–below-cost investigations 

to determine whether Aquatica’s and 

Compescal’s sales were made at prices 

below their respective COPs. See 

Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from The Team entitled ‘‘Petitioners’

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for Aquatica Maricultura do 

Brasil Ltda.’’ dated November 6, 2006; 

and Memorandum to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, AD/CVD Operations, 

from The Team entitled ‘‘Petitioners’

Allegation of Sales Below the Cost of 

Production for Comercio de Pescado 

Aracatiense Ltda.,’’ dated November 28, 

2006. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the 

respondents’ cost of production (‘‘COP’’) 

based on the sum of their costs of 

materials and conversion for the foreign 

like product, plus amounts for general 

and administrative (‘‘G&A’’) expenses 

and interest expenses. See ‘‘Test of 

Comparison Market Sales Prices’’

section below for treatment of home 

market/third country selling expenses. 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by each respondent in its 

most recent supplemental section D 

questionnaire response for the COP 

calculation, except for the following 

instances where the information was not 

appropriately quantified or valued: 

a. Aquatica 

1. We disallowed Aquatica’s claimed 

adjustment to its reported costs for 

flood and virus losses because 

Aquatica did not provide sufficient 

evidence of flood losses and 

because we determined that the 

virus was not non–recurring, 

unforeseen or otherwise 

extraordinary. 

2. We adjusted the cost of larva that 

was purchased from Aquatica’s 

affiliate to reflect the market value 

of larva in accordance with section 

773(f)(2) of the Act. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10686 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

Our revisions to Aquatica’s COP data 

are discussed in the Memorandum from 

James Balog, Senior Accountant, to Neal 

Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, 

entitled ‘‘Cost of Production and 

Constructed Value Calculation 

Adjustments for the Preliminary Results 

- Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda.,’’

dated February 28, 2007. 

b. Compescal 

1. We disallowed Compescal’s offset 

to the POR larva laboratory and 

farm costs for losses in productivity 

experienced as a result of a viral 

infection because we determined 

that the virus was not non–

recurring, unforeseen, or otherwise 

extraordinary. 

2. We revised the reported total fixed 

overhead costs to exclude only the 

2004 and 2005 construction–inprogress costs that were actually 

incurred and capitalized during the 

POR. 

3. We increased Compescal’s cost of 

raw shrimp obtained from an 

affiliated supplier to reflect the 

market value of this input in 

accordance with section 773(f)(2) of 

the Act. 

4. We revised Compescal’s reported 

G&A expense rate calculation to 

include the ‘‘revaluation of 

depreciation expenses’’ that the 

company recorded as an 

administrative expense in their 

records. In addition, we adjusted 

the cost of goods sold denominator 

of the calculation to reflect the same 

basis as the total cost of 

manufacturing to which the rate is 

applied. 

5. We adjusted the cost of goods sold 

denominator of the financial 

expense rate calculation to reflect 

the same basis as the total cost of 

manufacturing to which the rate is 

applied. 

Our revisions to Compescal’s COP data 

are discussed in the Memorandum from 

Heidi Schriefer, Senior Accountant, to 

Neal Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, entitled ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Comercio de 

Pescado Aracatiense Ltda.,’’ dated 

February 28, 2007. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product–specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weighted–

average COP to the home market or 

third country sales of the foreign like 

product, as required under section 

773(b) of the Act, in order to determine 

whether the sale prices were below the 

COP. For purposes of this comparison, 

we used COP exclusive of selling and 

packing expenses. The prices were 

inclusive of interest revenue and 

exclusive of any applicable movement 

charges, discounts, and direct and 

indirect selling expenses and packing 

expenses, revised where appropriate. 

With respect to Aquatica, we 

reclassified certain expenses (i.e., port 

handling and brokerage expenses) as 

movement expenses because Aquatica 

had incorrectly reported them as direct 

selling expenses. Based on our sales 

verification findings for Aquatica, we 

made minor revisions to port handling 

fees reported for certain third country 

sales and to the calculation of indirect 

selling expenses for all third country 

sales. See Aquatica Calculation 

Memorandum. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

home market or third country sales 

made at prices below the COP, we 

examined, in accordance with sections 

773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act: 1) 

whether, within an extended period of 

time, such sales were made in 

substantial quantities; and 2) whether 

such sales were made at prices which 

permitted the recovery of all costs 

within a reasonable period of time in 

the normal course of trade. Where less 

than 20 percent of the respondent’s 

home market or third country sales of a 

given product are at prices less than the 

COP, we do not disregard any below–

cost sales of that product, because we 

determine that in such instances the 

below–cost sales were not made within 

an extended period of time and in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of a respondent’s sales 

of a given product are at prices less than 

the COP, we disregard the below–cost 

sales because: 1) they were made within 

an extended period of time in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act, and 2) based on our comparison of 

prices to the weighted–average COPs for 

the POR, they were at prices which 

would not permit the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time, 

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

of the Act. 

We found that, for certain specific 

products, more than 20 percent of 

Compescal’s home market sales were at 

prices less than the COP and, in 

addition, such sales did not provide for 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We therefore excluded 

these sales and used the remaining sales 

as the basis for determining NV, in 

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

Act. 

We found that, for all products, 

Aquatica’s third country sales were at 

prices less than the COP, and in 

addition, such sales did not provide for 

the recovery of costs within a reasonable 

period of time. We therefore excluded 

all third country sales and used CV as 

the basis for determining NV, in 

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

Act. 

With respect to Compescal, for those 

U.S. sales of subject merchandise for 

which there were no useable home 

market sales in the ordinary course of 

trade, we compared EPs to the CV in 

accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the 

Act. See ‘‘Calculation of Normal Value 

Based on Constructed Value’’ section 

below. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

Compescal 

We based NV for Compescal on 

delivered, FOB port, FOB airport, or ex–

factory prices to unaffiliated customers 

in the home market. We made 

adjustments, where appropriate, to the 

starting price for interest revenue. We 

made deductions, where appropriate, 

from the starting price for foreign inland 

freight and warehousing expenses, 

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

We recalculated foreign inland freight 

and warehousing expenses for all 

comparison market sales consistent with 

verification findings. See Compescal 

Calculation Memorandum. 

We made adjustments for differences 

in costs attributable to differences in the 

physical characteristics of the 

merchandise in accordance with section 

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

351.411. In addition, we made 

adjustments under section 

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

351.410 for differences in circumstance–

of-sale (‘‘COS’’) for imputed credit 

expenses, courier fees and 

documentation fees. We recalculated 

courier fees for all U.S. sales based on 

verification findings. We recalculated 

home market credit expenses using a 

publicly available average Brazilian 

short–term lending rate relevant to the 

POR, in accordance with the Import 

Administration Policy Bulletin No. 98.2 

(February 23, 1998), because Compescal 

had no home market borrowings during 

the POR. See Compescal Calculation 

Memorandum. 

We also deducted home market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with section 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10687 

7This 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. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison–market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, for those 

frozen warmwater shrimp products for 

which we could not determine the NV 

based on comparison–market sales, 

either because there were no useable 

sales of a comparable product or all 

sales of the comparable products failed 

the COP test, we based NV on the CV. 

Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 

the CV shall be based on the sum of the 

cost of materials and fabrication for the 

imported merchandise, plus amounts 

for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. For each respondent, we 

calculated the cost of materials and 

fabrication, G&A, and interest based on 

the methodology described in the ‘‘Cost 

of Production Analysis’’ section, above. 

For Aquatica, because all of its 

comparison–market sales failed the COP 

test and, therefore, were outside the 

ordinary course of trade, we cannot 

determine selling expenses or profit 

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

which requires sales by the respondent 

in question in the ordinary course of 

trade in a comparison market. Likewise, 

because Aquatica did not have sales of 

any product in the same general 

category of products as the subject 

merchandise, we are unable to apply 

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

the Act. Further, we cannot calculate 

profit based on alternative (ii) of this 

section without violating our 

responsibility to protect respondent’s 

administrative protective order (APO) 

information because Compescal is the 

only other respondent with viable home 

market sales (19 CFR 351.405(b) 

requires that a profit ratio under this 

alternative be based solely on home 

market sales). If we were to use 

Compescal’s profit ratio exclusively 

under this alternative, Aquatica would 

be able to determine Compsecal’s 

proprietary profit rate. Therefore, we 

based Aquatica’s CV profit and selling 

expenses on the third alternative, any 

other reasonable method, in accordance 

with section 773(e)(2)(B)(iii) of the Act. 

As a reasonable method, we calculated 

Aquatica’s CV profit and selling 

expenses based on the weighted–

average selling expense and profit rates 

derived from the comparison–market 

data of the respondents in the previous 

segment of this proceeding. See Notice 

of Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil, 69 FR 47081 (August 4, 2004), 

and Memorandum from James Balog, 

Senior Accountant, to Neal Halper, 

Director, Office of Accounting, entitled 

‘‘Cost of Production and Constructed 

Value Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results - Aquatica 

Maricultura do Brasil Ltda.,’’ dated 

February 28, 2007. Pursuant to 

alternative (iii), we have the option of 

using any other reasonable method, as 

long as the result is not greater than the 

amount realized by exporters or 

producers ‘‘in connection with the sale, 

for consumption in the foreign country, 

of merchandise that is in the same 

general category of products as the 

subject merchandise,’’ the ‘‘profit cap’’. 

In the instant case, the profit cap cannot 

be calculated using the available data 

because using Compescal’s home market 

data, the only information we have to 

allow us to calculate the amount 

normally realized by other exporters or 

producers in connection with the sale, 

for consumption in the home market, of 

merchandise in the same general 

category, would violate our 

responsibility to protect the 

respondent’s APO information. 

Therefore, as facts available, we are 

applying option (iii), without 

quantifying a profit cap. 

For Compescal, we based SG&A and 

profit on the actual amounts incurred 

and realized by Compescal in 

connection with the production and sale 

of the foreign like product in the 

ordinary course of trade for 

consumption in the comparison market, 

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

of the Act. 

We made adjustments to CV for each 

respondent for differences in COS in 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.410. For 

comparisons to EP for Compescal, we 

made COS adjustments by deducting 

direct selling expenses incurred on 

home market sales from, and adding 

U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. For 

comparisons to EP for Aquatica, we 

made COS adjustments by deducting 

direct selling expenses derived based on 

the methodology discussed above, and 

adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, 

CV. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

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

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

August 4, 2004, through January 31, 

2006, as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Aquatica Maricultura do Brasil Ltda./ Aquafeed do Brasil Ltda. ............................................................................. 55.05 

Comercio de Pescado Aracatiense Ltda. ................................................................................................................ 23.11 

Review–Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies:7

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Amazonas Industrias Alimenticias ........................................................................................................................... 48.13 

Bramex Brasil Mercantil S.A. ................................................................................................................................... 48.13 

Guy Vautrin Importacao & Exportacao .................................................................................................................... 48.13 

ITA Fish ................................................................................................................................................................... 48.13 

JK Pesca Ltda. ........................................................................................................................................................ 48.13 

Lusomar Maricultura Ltda. ....................................................................................................................................... 48.13 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
10688 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

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

AFA Rate Applicable to the Following 

Companies: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

SM Pescados Industria Comercio E Exportacao Ltda. ........................................................................................... 349.00 

Valenca da Bahia Maricultura SA ........................................................................................................................... 349.00 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit cases briefs not later than 30 

days after the date of issuance of the last 

verification report in this case. Rebuttal 

briefs, limited to issues raised in the 

case briefs, may be filed not later than 

35 days after the date of issuance of the 

last verification report in this case. 

Parties who submit case briefs or 

rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are 

requested to submit with each argument 

1) a statement of the issue; 2) a brief 

summary of the argument; and 3) a table 

of authorities. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room B–099, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

1) the party’s name, address and 

telephone number; 2) the number of 

participants; and 3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in the respective case 

briefs. The Department will issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any written 

briefs, not later than 120 days after the 

date of publication of this notice, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

For Aquatica and Compescal, because 

they did not report the entered value of 

their U.S. sales, we will calculate 

importer–specific per–unit duty 

assessment rates by aggregating the total 

amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity of those sales. To determine 

whether the duty assessment rates are 

de minimis, in accordance with the 

requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will calculate 

importer–specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

For the responsive companies which 

were not selected for individual review, 

we will calculate an assessment rate 

based on the weighted–average of the 

cash deposit rates calculated for the 

companies selected for individual 

review excluding any which are de 

minimis or determined entirely on AFA. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer–specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

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

above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

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

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

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

than 0.50 percent). See 19 CFR 

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

review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

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

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the ‘‘All 

Others’’ rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; 2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, or the original 

LTFV investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and 4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will continue to be 7.05 

percent, the ‘‘All Others’’ rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Shrimp Order. These requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 10689 

1Further, we preliminarily determine to use total 

adverse facts available to determine the rate for 

eleven of the sixteen administrative review 

companies and the Vietnam-wide entity. 

2The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is 

the Petitioner. 

3See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of New 

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

(‘‘New Shipper Initiation’’). 

4AAAS Logistics, Agrimex, Amanda Foods 

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

Agricultural Technology Service Company, An 

Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock 

Company (Agifish), Aquatic Products Trading 

Company*, Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited*, 

Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct Exports, Bentre 

Aquaproduct Imports & Exports, Cai Doi Vam 

Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex)*, 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export 

Corporation (Camimex)*, Cam Ranh Seafoods 

Processing Enterprise Company (Camranh 

Seafoods)*, Cantho Animal Fisheries Product 

Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex)*, Can Tho 

Agricultural Products, Can Tho Agricultural and 

Animal Products Import Export Company (Cataco)*, 

Can Tho Seafood Exports, Cautre Enterprises, 

Coastal Fishery Development, Coastal Fisheries 

Development Corporation (Cofidec)*, C P Vietnam 

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

Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro)*, Danang 

Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (Seaprodex 

Danang)*, Dong Phuc Huynh Frozen Seafoods Fty, 

General Imports & Exports, Grobest & I Mei Industry 

Vietnam, Hacota Hai Viet, Hai Thuan Export 

Seaproducts Processing Co. Ltd., Hanoi Sea 

Products Import Export Corporation*, Hoa Nam 

Marine Agricultural, Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct 

Fty, Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation 

(Incomfish)*, Kien Giang Sea Products Import—

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

Khanh Loi Trading, Lamson Import-Export 

Foodstuffs Corporation, Minh Hai Export Frozen 

Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, Minh Hai 

Export Frozen Seafoods Processing Joint Stock 

Company (Minh Hai Jostoco)*, Minh Hai Joint 

Stock Seafoods Processing Company (Seaprodex 

Minh Hai)*, Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export 

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

Minh Phu Seafood Corporation*, Minh Qui 

Seafood*, Ngoc Sinh Seafoods*, Nha Trang 

Company Limited, Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

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

Ltd., Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (Nhatrang 

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

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import Export 

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

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

Foods Joint Stock Compay (Fimex VN)*, Seafood 

Processing Imports Exports Vietnam, Seaprodex, 

Sea Product, Sea Products Imports & Exports, Song 

Huong ASC Import-Export Company Ltd.*, Song 

Huong ASC Joint Stock Company, Soc Trang 

Aquatic Products and General Import Export 

Company (Stampimex)*, Soc Trang Aquatic 

Products and General Import Export Company 

(Stampimex)*, Sonacos, Special Aquatic Products 

Joing Stock Company (Seaspimex), Tacvan Frozen 

Seafoods Processing Export Company, Thami 

Shipping & Airfreight, Thanh Long, Thanh Long, 

Thien Ma Seafood, Tho Quang Seafood Processing 

& Export Company, Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and 

Trading Corporation*, Tourism Material and 

Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City 

Branch), Truc An Company, UTXI Aquatic Products 

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

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

Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie Co. Ltd., Viet 

Nhan Company*, Vilfood Co, Vinh Loi Import 

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

(* these companies received a separate rate in the 

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

of this proceeding. 

5See Letter from Grobest Re: Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam: Grobest’s 

Request for Alignment of New Shipper and 

Administrative Reviews, dated May 15, 2006. 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: February 28, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

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

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Results of the 

First Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review and a new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

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

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

2004, through January 1, 2006. As 

discussed below, we preliminarily 

determine that certain respondents in 

these reviews (covering one new 

shipper review and sixteen companies 

subject to the administrative review) 1

have not made sales in the United States 

at prices below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in our 

final results of review, we will instruct 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) to assess antidumping duties 

on entries of subject merchandise 

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

minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nicole Bankhead (respondent Grobest), 

and Matthew Renkey (respondent Fish 

One), AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Import Administration, International 

Trade Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482–9068 

and (202) 482–2312, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 

5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘VN Shrimp 

Order’’). On January 31, 2006, we 

received a request for a new shipper 

review from Grobest & I-Mei Industrial 

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

February 1, 2006, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam for the 

period July 16, 2004, through January 

31, 2006. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 71 

FR 5239 (February 1, 2006). 

On February 28, 2006, we received 

requests to conduct administrative 

reviews of 83 companies from the 

Petitioner 2 in addition to requests by 

certain Vietnamese companies. See 

Notice of Initiation of Administrative 

Reviews of the Antidumping Duty 

Orders on Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

and the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 17813 (April 7, 2006) 

(‘‘Administrative Review Initiation’’). 

On March 17, 2006, the Department also 

initiated a new shipper review with 

respect to Grobest.3 On March 31, 2006, 

the Department initiated an 

administrative review of eighty-four 4

producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise from Vietnam. See 

Administrative Review Initiation. On 

May 31, 2006, the Department aligned 

Grobest’s new shipper review with that 

of Fish One based on a request from 

Grobest.5

On July 27, 2006, in accordance with 

section 351.213(d)(1) of the 

Department’s regulations, we rescinded 

the administrative review with respect 

to sixty-eight companies. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial 

Rescission of the First Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 42628 (July 27, 2006) 

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


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES