13242 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

margins calculated for the examined 

sales to the total entered value of those 

same sales. We will instruct CBP to 

assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for the 

exporters listed above, the cash deposit 

rate will be established in these final 

results of review (except, if the rate is 

zero or de minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 

percent, no cash deposit will be 

required for that company); (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non–PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash deposit rate will 

be the PRC–wide rate of 157.68 percent; 

and (4) for all non–PRC exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash deposit 

rate will be the rate applicable to the 

PRC exporters that supplied that non–

PRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as the final 

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 in the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (APO) of 

their responsibility concerning the 

return/destruction or conversion to 

judicial protective order of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 

Failure to comply is a violation of the 

APO. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are published in accordance with 

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

Act. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration. 

Appendix I 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Appropriate Source for 

Financial Ratios Surrogate Values 

Comment 2: Classification of Labor in 

Financial Ratios 

Comment 3: NME Wage Rate 

Comment 4: Zeroing 

Comment 5: Appropriate Surrogate 

Value for Hot–Rolled Steel 

Company–Specific Issues 

Since Hardware–Related Issues 

Comment 6: Market Economy Purchases 

Comment 7: By–Product Offset 

Foshan Shunde–Related Issues 

Comment 8: Rescission of Shunde 

Yongjian and Foshan Shunde 

Comment 9: Calculating a Margin for 

Foshan Shunde 

Comment 10: By–Product Clerical Error 

Forever Holdings–Related Issues 

Comment 11: Rescission of Forever 

Holdings 

Comment 12: Clerical Errors in 

Surrogate Values 

[FR Doc. E7–5170 Filed 3–20–02; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results of the Second Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of the 

second administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen fish fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). See 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

53387 (September 11, 2006) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We gave 

interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results 

and conducted verification of one 

respondent, QVD Food Company, Ltd. 

(‘‘QVD’’). Based upon our analysis of the 

comments and information received, we 

made changes to the dumping margin 

calculations for the final results. See 

Memorandum to the File from Julia 

Hancock, Senior Case Analyst, through 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager; 

Analysis for the Final Results of Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: QVD Food 

Company, (March 12, 2007) (‘‘QVD 

Final Analysis Memo’’.) 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 21, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Hancock, 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) 482–1394. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Case History 

The Preliminary Results for this 

administrative review were published 

on September 11, 2006. Since the 

Preliminary Results, the following 

events have occurred: 

On September 18, 2006, QVD 

requested an extension to submit 

publicly available information to be 

used in valuing surrogate factors of 

production for the final results. On 

September 22, 2006, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

submission of publicly available 

information for the final results to 

November 20, 2006. 

On November 15, 2006, the Catfish 

Farmers of America and individual 

processors, (‘‘Petitioners’’), requested an 

extension to submit publicly available 

information to be used in valuing 

surrogate factors of production. On 

November 17, 2006, the Department 

extended the deadline for the 

submission of publicly available 

information for the final results to 

January 4, 2007. 

On January 3, 2007, QVD requested an 

extension to submit publicly available 

information to be used in valuing 

surrogate factors of production for the 

final results. On January 3, 2007, the 

Department issued a letter to QVD 

rejecting its extension request. On 

January 4, 2007, QVD and Petitioners 

submitted publicly available 

information for the final results. 

On January 16, 2007, Petitioners and 

QVD submitted rebuttal comments on 

the January 4, 2007, submissions on 

publicly available information for the 

final results. On January 19, 2007, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 13243 

Petitioners submitted a letter requesting 

that the Department reject QVD’s 

January 16, 2007, rebuttal comments 

because they contained new factual 

information. On January 22, 2007, QVD 

submitted a letter in response to 

Petitioners’ January 19, 2007, letter. 

On January 26, 2007, the Department 

rejected QVD’s January 16, 2007, 

rebuttal comments as new factual 

information and requested that QVD 

resubmit its rebuttal comments without 

this information. On January 29, 2007, 

QVD resubmitted its January 16, 2007, 

rebuttal comments without the new 

factual information. 

Verification 

On November 1, 2006, the Department 

issued verification outlines for QVD and 

QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘Dong 

Thap’’), for the on–site verifications 

scheduled for November 27 through 29, 

2006, and December 7 and 8, 2006. 

Additionally, on November 7, 2006 the 

Department issued verification outlines 

for QVD Choi Moi Farming Cooperative 

(‘‘Choi Moi’’) and Thuan An Seafood 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Thuan An’’), for the on–site 

verifications scheduled for November 

30, 2006 to December 6, 2006. 

On November 21, 2006, Petitioners 

submitted pre–verification comments. 

On December 20, 2006, the Department 

issued verification outlines for QVD 

USA LLC (‘‘QVD USA’’) and Beaver 

Street Fisheries, Inc. (‘‘BSF’’), for the 

on–site verifications scheduled for 

January 11 through 16, 2007. 

On January 9, 2007, Petitioners 

submitted pre–verification comments on 

QVD USA and BSF. On January 29, 

2007, the Department issued the 

verification report of QVD, Dong Thap, 

Choi Moi, and Thuan An. Additionally, 

on January 30, 2007, the Department 

issued the verification report of QVD 

USA and BSF. On February 6, 2007, 

QVD submitted comments on the 

Department’s January 29, 2007, 

verification report. 

On March 9, 2007, the Department 

placed copies of the QVD, Dong Thap, 

Choi Moi, Thuan An, QVD USA, and 

BSF verification exhibits on the record. 

Case Briefs and Rebuttal Briefs 

On September 22, 2006, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the submission of case briefs and 

rebuttal briefs. On November 17, 2006, 

the Department further extended the 

deadline for case briefs and rebuttal 

briefs. 

On February 1, 2007, Petitioners 

submitted a letter to the Department 

requesting an extension of the deadline 

for the submission of case briefs and 

rebuttal briefs. On February 1, 2007, the 

Department again extended the deadline 

for case briefs and rebuttal briefs. 

On February 2 and 6, 2007, Valley 

Fresh, Inc., QVD, and Petitioners 

submitted case briefs. On February 6, 

2007, the Department requested 

comments on the revised FY 2004 non–

market economy (‘‘NME’’) wage rates, to 

be submitted with the rebuttal briefs. 

Additionally, on February 12, 2007, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

interested parties to submit rebuttal 

briefs. 

On February 13, 2007, the Department 

confirmed that no interested party 

would be submitting comments 

regarding QVD’s February 6, 2007, 

letter, regarding the attachment 

contained in the Department’s January 

29, 2007, verification report. On 

February 13, 2007, the Department again 

extended the deadline for interested 

parties to submit rebuttal briefs. On 

February 14, 2007, QVD and Petitioners 

submitted rebuttal briefs, which also 

contained comments on the 

Department’s FY 2004 revised wage 

rates. 

On March 9, 2007, the Department 

rejected Valley Fresh’s March 5, 2007, 

submission as untimely, factual 

information. 

Hearing 

On October 11, 2006, Petitioners 

submitted a request for a public hearing. 

On February 6, 2007, Petitioners 

submitted a request for a portion of the 

hearing to be closed. On February 15, 

2007, the Department issued a letter to 

interested parties regarding the schedule 

of the hearing. Additionally, on 

February 16, 2007, the Department 

issued two letters regarding the 

schedule and the logistics of the 

hearing. 

On February 16, 2007, Petitioners 

withdrew their October 11, 2006, and 

February 6, 2007, requests for a public 

and closed hearing. On February 21, 

2007, the Department issued a letter to 

interested parties cancelling the hearing. 

Extension of the Final Results 

On November 24, 2006, the 

Department extended the time limit for 

completion of the final results of the 

instant administrative review. See 

Notice of Extension of Time Limit for 

the Final Results of the Second 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 71 FR 

67849 (November 24, 2006). 

QVD 

On September 6, 2006, QVD 

submitted comments alleging that there 

were clerical errors in the Preliminary 

Results. On September 8, 2006, 

Petitioners submitted rebuttal comments 

in response to QVD’s September 6, 

2006, letter. On September 11, 2006, 

QVD submitted rebuttal comments in 

response to Petitioners’ September 8, 

2006, rebuttal comments. Additionally, 

on September 11, 2006, the Department 

issued a letter to QVD regarding QVD’s 

allegation of clerical errors in the 

Preliminary Results. 

On September 18, 2006, the 

Department issued a supplemental 

questionnaire to QVD. On September 

29, 2006, QVD requested an extension to 

respond to the Department’s 

supplemental questionnaire. 

Additionally, on September 29, 2006, 

the Department extended the deadline 

for QVD to respond to the supplemental 

questionnaire to October 19, 2006. 

On October 17, 2006, QVD submitted 

a second extension request to respond to 

the Department’s supplemental 

questionnaire. On October 17, 2006, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

QVD to respond to its supplemental 

questionnaire to October 23, 2006. On 

October 23, 2006, the Department 

received QVD’s supplemental 

questionnaire response. 

On November 3, 2006, Petitioners 

submitted comments to the Department 

regarding QVD’s October 23, 2006, 

supplemental questionnaire response. 

On November 8, 2006, the Department 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

QVD. 

On November 14, 2006, the 

Department issued a letter to QVD 

requesting that QVD make certain 

information public information. On 

November 15, 2006, QVD submitted an 

extension request for responding to the 

Department’s November 8, 2006, 

supplemental questionnaire. 

Additionally, on November 16, 2006, 

QVD submitted a letter stating that it 

does not consent to the public release of 

certain information. On November 17, 

2006, the Department issued the 

verification outline to QVD. On 

November 21, 2006, QVD submitted a 

response to the Department’s November 

8, 2006, supplemental questionnaire. 

On January 4, 2007, QVD submitted a 

letter to the Department supplementing 

its October 23, 2006, supplemental 

questionnaire response. On January 16, 

2007, QVD submitted pre–verification 

corrections. 

On February 1, 2007, the Department 

issued a letter to QVD requesting that 

QVD submit QVD’s U.S. sales and 

factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’) 

databases with the corrections from 

verification. On February 7, 2007, QVD 

submitted a revised version of its U.S. 

sales and FOPs databases. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13244 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

1See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy 

Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import 

Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third 

Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1, 

2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 

2See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy 

Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import 

Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third 

Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1, 

2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 

3See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy 

Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import 

Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Second 

Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (February 

2, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 

2007. 

4See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy 

Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import 

Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: 

Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (January 

30, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 

1, 2007. 

5Until July 1, 2004, these products were 

classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 

(Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish 

Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater 

Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) 

of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these 

products were classifiable under tariff article code 

0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species 

Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. 

Scope Of The Order 

The product covered by this order is 

frozen fish fillets, including regular, 

shank, and strip fillets and portions 

thereof, whether or not breaded or 

marinated, of the species Pangasius 

Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus 

(also known as Pangasius Pangasius), 

and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish 

fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. 

The fillet products covered by the scope 

include boneless fillets with the belly 

flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless 

fillets with the belly flap removed 

(‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets 

cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’), 

which include fillets cut into strips, 

chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other 

shape. Specifically excluded from the 

scope are frozen whole fish (whether or 

not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen 

belly–flap nuggets. Frozen whole 

dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and 

eviscerated. Steaks are bone–in, crosssection cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are 

the belly–flaps. The subject 

merchandise will be hereinafter referred 

to as frozen ‘‘basa’’ and ‘‘tra’’ fillets, 

which are the Vietnamese common 

names for these species of fish. These 

products are classifiable under tariff 

article codes 1604.19.40001, 

1604.19.50002, 0305.59.40003, 

0304.29.60334 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the 

species Pangasius including basa and 

tra) of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule 

of the United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).5 This 

order covers all frozen fish fillets 

meeting the above specification, 

regardless of tariff classification. 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, our written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Analysis Of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties to this 

proceeding and to which we have 

responded are listed in the Appendix to 

this notice and addressed in the Issues 

and Decision Memorandum (‘‘Final 

Decision Memo’’), which is hereby 

adopted by this notice. Parties can find 

a complete discussion of the issues 

raised in this administrative review and 

the corresponding recommendations in 

this public memorandum which is on 

file in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’), room B–099 of the main 

Department building. In addition, a 

copy of the Final Decision Memo can be 

accessed directly on our Web site at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/. The paper copy 

and electronic version of the Final 

Decision Memo are identical in content. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the of 

the Tariff Act, as Amended (‘‘the Act’’), 

we conducted verification of the 

information submitted by QVD, its 

affiliated Vietnamese companies, Choi 

Moi and Dong Thap, its Vietnamese 

toller, Thuan An, and its affiliated U.S. 

importer, QVD USA and other U.S. 

importer, BSF, for use in our final 

results. See Memorandum to the File, 

through, Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from, Julia Hancock, Senior Case 

Analyst, and Javier Barrientos, 

Financial Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Subject: Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, RE: Verification of Sales and 

Factors of Production for Vietnam 

Companies, (January 29, 2007) 

(‘‘Vietnam Verification Report’’); 

Memorandum to the File, through, Alex 

Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office 

9, from, Julia Hancock, Senior Case 

Analyst, and Irene Gorelik, Case 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

Subject: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, RE: 

Verification of Sales of U.S. Companies, 

(January 30, 2007) (‘‘U.S. Verification 

Report’’). For all companies, we used 

standard verification procedures, 

including examination of relevant 

accounting and production records, as 

well as original source documents 

provided by the Respondents. 

Changes Since The Preliminary Results 

Based on a review of the record as 

well as comments received from parties 

regarding our Preliminary Results, we 

have made revisions to the margin 

calculation for QVD for the final results. 

The following changes are addressed in 

the Final Decision Memo: (1) a 

recalculation of QVD’s weighted–

average database addressed in Comment 

13, (2) the use of Choi Moi and 

Company H’s FOPs for calculation of 

NV addressed in Comment 1, (3) the use 

of only QVD USA’s CEP sales to the first 

unaffiliated customer addressed in 

Comment 3, (4) the application of 

partial adverse facts available to Choi 

Moi’s unreported harvest labor 

addressed in Comment 3, (5) the 

calculation of QVD’s cash deposit and 

assessment rates on a per–unit basis in 

Comment 6, (6) changes to the following 

surrogate values: surrogate financial 

ratios, fish waste, labor, and ice 

addressed in Comments 9 and 10, and 

(7) changes to QVD’s margin program 

language addressed in Comments 8 and 

11. See QVDFinal Analysis Memo. See 

also Memorandum from Julia Hancock, 

Senior Case Analyst, through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9 

and James C. Doyle, Office Director, 

Office 9, to The File, Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’): Surrogate 

Values for the Final Results, dated 

March 12, 2006 (‘‘Final Factors Memo’’). 

Adverse Facts Available 

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

that if an interested party: (A) withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department; (B) fails to provide such 

information in a timely manner or in the 

form or manner requested, subject to 

subsections 782(c)(1) and (e) of the Act; 

(C) significantly impedes a 

determination under the antidumping 

statute; or (D) provides such information 

but the information cannot be verified, 

the Department shall, subject to 

subsection 782(d) of the Act, use facts 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination. 

Furthemore, section 776(b) of the Act 

provides that, if the Department finds 

that an interested party ‘‘has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information,’’ the Department may use 

information that is adverse to the 

interests of that party as facts otherwise 

available. 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 (‘‘SAA’’) 

accompanying the URAA, H.R. Doc. No. 

316, 103d Cong., 2d Session at 870 

(1994). An adverse inference may 

include reliance on information derived 

from the petition, the final 

determination in the investigation, any 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 13245 

7 In our Preliminary Results, for those 

respondents who reported an entered value, we 

divided the total dumping margins for the reviewed 

sales by the total entered value of those reviewed 

sales of each applicable importer to calculate an ad 

valorem assessment rate. 

previous review, or any other 

information placed on the record. See 

section 776(b) of the Act. 

Cataco 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department assigned total AFA to 

Cataco. The Department did not receive 

any comments regarding the Department 

application of total AFA to Cataco. 

Therefore, for the final results, we 

continue to apply AFA to Cataco. 

However, the Department did receive 

comments on the calculation of Cataco’s 

cash deposit and assessment rates 

addressed in Comment 5 of the Final 

Decision Memo, Cataco’s cash deposit 

and assessment rates remain unchanged 

for these final results. 

Vietnam–Wide Entity 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department assigned total AFA to the 

Vietnam–Wide Entity, including Can 

Tho Animal Fishery Products 

Processing Export Enterprise 

(‘‘Cafatex’’), Mekong Fish Company 

(‘‘Mekonimex’’), Nam Viet Company, 

Ltd. (‘‘Navico’’), Phan Quan Trading 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phan Quan’’), An Giang 

Agriculture Technology Service 

Company (‘‘ANTESCO’’), Anhaco, Binh 

Dinh Import Export Company (‘‘Binh 

Dinh’’), Vinh Long Import–Export 

Company (‘‘Vinh Long’’), and An Giang 

Agriculture and Foods Import–Export 

Company (‘‘Afiex’’). The Department 

did not receive any comments regarding 

the Vietnam–Wide Entity. Therefore, for 

the final results, we continue to apply 

AFA to the Vietnam–Wide Entity and 

continue to treat Cafatex, Mekonimex, 

Navico, Phan Quan, Afiex, ANTESCO, 

Anhaco, Binh Ding, and Vinh Long as 

part of the Vietnam–Wide Entity. 

Final Results Of Review 

The weighted–average dumping 

margins for the POR are as follows: 

CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM

VIETNAM

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

QVD .............................. 21.23 

Cataco .......................... 80.88 

Vietnam–Wide Entity6 ... 63.88 

6The Vietnam-wide Entity includes Cafatex, 

Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan, Afiex, 

ANTESCO, Anhaco, Binh Ding, and Vinh 

Long. 

Assessment 

The Department will determine, and 

the U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). We have 

calculated importer–specific duty 

assessment rates on a per–unit basis. 

Specifically, we divided the total 

dumping margins (calculated as the 

difference between normal value and 

export price or constructed export price) 

for each importer by the total quantity 

of subject merchandise sold to that 

importer during the POR to calculate a 

per–unit assessment amount. In this and 

future reviews, we will direct CBP to 

assess importer–specific assessment 

rates based on the resulting per–unit 

(i.e., per–kilogram) rates by the weight 

in kilograms of each entry of the subject 

merchandise during the POR. The 

Department will issue appropriate 

assessment instructions directly to the 

CBP within 15 days of publication of the 

final results of this administrative 

review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after the publication 

date, as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash 

deposit rate for each of the reviewed 

companies that received a separate rate 

in this review will be the rate listed in 

the final results of review (except that 

if the rate for a particular company is de 

minimis, i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no 

cash deposit will be required for that 

company); (2) for previously 

investigated companies not listed above, 

the cash deposit rate will continue to be 

the company–specific rate published for 

the most recent period; (3) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a prior review, or the original 

LTFV investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and (4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters (including Cafatex, 

Mekonimex, Navico, Phan Quan or 

Afiex) will be the Vietnam–wide rate of 

63.88 percent, as explained in the Final 

Decision Memo. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Reimbursement Of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

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 POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties has occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective orders (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

administrative review and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 12, 2007. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I – Decision Memorandum 

Issues For The Final Results: 

Comment 1: Affiliation Issues 

A. Company H 

B. Choi Moi 

C. Company A2, Company B, and 

Company K 

D. QVD USA/BSF and Constructed 

Export Price (‘‘CEP’’) Sales 

Comment 2: Total Adverse Facts 

Available 

A. CEP Sales 

B. Choi Moi 

C. Thuan An 

D. Dong Thap 

E. CONNUM–Specific Factors of 

Production (‘‘FOPS’’) 

Comment 3: Partial AFA for FOPs 

A. Choi Moi’s FOPs 

B. Thuan An’s FOPs 

C. Company H’s Fish Waste 

D. CONNUM–Specific FOPs 

E. Factor X 

Comment 4: Valley Fresh 

Comment 5: Reimbursement 

Comment 6: Cash Deposit and 

Assessement 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
13246 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 54 / Wednesday, March 21, 2007 / Notices 

1The full text of the policy bulletin can be found 

at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04-1.html. 

2The Department now uses per capita GNI, rather 

than per capita GDP, because while the two 

measures are very similar, per capita GNI is 

reported across almost all countries by an 

authoritative source (the World Bank), and because 

the Department believes that the per capita GNI 

represents the single best measure of a country’s 

level of total income and thus level of economic 

development. 

Comment 7: Corrections to U.S. Sales 

A. Entered Value 

B. International Freight 

C. U.S. Inland Freight from 

Warehouse 

Comment 8: Surrogate Values 

A. Fish Waste 

B. Whole Fish 

C. Ice 

D. Wage Rates 

Comment 9: Surrogate Financial Ratios 

A. Bionic Seafoods 

B. Calculation of Ratios 

Comment 10: Clerical Errors in Margin 

Calculation 

A. Conversion of Water 

B. Assessment Rate: Importer of 

Record vs. Customer Code 

C. Exchange Rates 

D. Containerization 

Comment 11: CEP Verification Report 

Comment 12: Denominator and 

Numerator of FOPs 

A. Choi Moi’s Denominator 

B. Thuan An and Dong Thap’s 

Numerator 

C. Thuan An’s Denominator 

D. Dong Thap’s Numerator and 

Denominator 

Comment 13: Thuan An’s Financial 

Statements 

Comment 14: Gross Weight vs. Net 

Weight 

Comment 15: New Factual Information 

Comment 16: Clarification of Vietnam 

Verification Report 

[FR Doc. E7–5178 Filed 3–20–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Non–Market 

Economy Countries: Surrogate 

Country Selection and Separate Rates 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

ACTION: Request for Comment. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) requests public 

comment on two aspects of its non–

market economy (‘‘NME’’) methodology 

in antidumping proceedings. First, the 

Department seeks comment on certain 

aspects of the methodology by which it 

selects an economically comparable 

surrogate market economy country for 

the NME country under investigation or 

review. Second, the Department is 

requesting comment on the 

methodology under which individual 

NME exporters can demonstrate 

independence from government control 

of their export activities and thereby 

qualify for separate rate status. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

thirty days from the publication of this 

notice. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments (original 

and six copies) should be sent to David 

Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Central Records Unit, Room 

1870, Pennsylvania Avenue and 14th 

Street NW, Washington, DC, 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lawrence Norton, Economist, or 

Anthony Hill, Senior International 

Economist, Office of Policy, Import 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington DC, 20230, 

202–482–1579 or 202–482–1843, 

respectively. 

Issue One: Surrogate Country Selection 

Background 

In antidumping proceedings involving 

NME countries, the Department 

calculates normal value by valuing the 

NME producer’s factors of production, 

to the extent possible, using prices from 

a market economy that is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development and that is also a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise. The Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), provides broad 

discretion in the selection of surrogate 

market economy countries to value 

NME factors of production. In 

particular, section 773(c)(1)(B) of the 

Act reads: 

...the valuation of the factors of 

production shall be based on the 

best available information regarding 

the values of such factors in a 

market economy country or 

countries considered to be 

appropriate by the administering 

authority. 

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act adds: 

The administering authority, in 

valuing factors of production under 

paragraph (1), shall utilize, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs 

of factors of production in one or 

more market economy countries 

that are 

A. at a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the nonmarket 

economy country, and 

B. a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise. 

The Act does not provide a definition 

of ‘‘comparable level of economic 

development,’’ ‘‘comparable 

merchandise,’’ or ‘‘significant 

producer.’’ However, the Department’s 

regulations do provide guidelines for 

comparing levels of economic 

development. 19 CFR 351.408(b) reads: 

Economic Comparability. In 

determining whether a country is at a 

level of economic development 

comparable to the nonmarket economy 

country under section 773(c)(2)(B) or 

section 773(c)(4)(A) of the Act, the 

Secretary will place primary emphasis 

on per capita GDP as the measure of 

economic comparability. 

Finally, the Department provided 

further guidance on economic 

comparability in a 2004 Policy Bulletin, 

establishing a sequential procedure for 

selecting a surrogate country, with 

economic comparability being the first 

factor considered. Import 

Administration Policy Bulletin 04.1 

states1: 

First, early in a proceeding, the 

Operations team sends the Office of 

Policy (‘‘OP’’) a written request for 

a list of potential surrogate 

countries. In response, OP provides 

a list of potential surrogate 

countries that are at a comparable 

level of economic development to 

the NME country. OP determines 

economic comparability on the 

basis of per capita gross national 

income, as reported in the most 

current annual issue of the World 

Development Report (The World 

Bank). The surrogate countries on 

the list are not ranked and should 

be considered equivalent in terms 

of economic comparability. Both 

the team’s written request and OP’s 

response should be made available 

to interested parties by being placed 

on the record of the proceeding. 

As noted above, in each proceeding, 

the Department generates a list of 

potential surrogate countries. In 

constructing this list, the Department 

orders the per capita gross national 

income (‘‘GNI’’) figures as reported in 

the latest available published edition of 

the World Bank’s World Development 

Report, disregarding countries 

designated as NMEs during the period 

of review.2 From among the remaining 

group of countries, the Department 

selects approximately five with similar 

levels of economic development to the 

NME that have offered, in the 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES