Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 62 / Monday, April 2, 2007 / Notices 15653 

1 In comments made on the interim final sunset 

regulations, a number of parties stated that the 

proposed five-day period for rebuttals to 

substantive responses to a notice of initiation was 

insufficient. This requirement was retained in the 

final sunset regulations at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(4). As 

provided in 19 CFR 351.302(b), however, the 

Department will consider individual requests for 

extension of that five-day deadline based upon a 

showing of good cause. 

DOC Case No. ITC Case No. Country Product Department Contact 

Suspended Investigations.

No suspended investigations are scheduled for 

initiation in April 2007.

Filing Information 

As a courtesy, we are making 

information related to Sunset 

proceedings, including copies of the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

Sunset Reviews (19 CFR 351.218) and 

Sunset Policy Bulletin, the Department’s 

schedule of Sunset Reviews, case 

history information (i.e., previous 

margins, duty absorption 

determinations, scope language, import 

volumes), and service lists available to 

the public on the Department’s sunset 

Internet website at the following 

address: ‘‘http://ia.ita.doc.gov/sunset/.’’

All submissions in these Sunset 

Reviews must be filed in accordance 

with the Department’s regulations 

regarding format, translation, service, 

and certification of documents. These 

rules can be found at 19 CFR 351.303. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.103(c), the 

Department will maintain and make 

available a service list for these 

proceedings. To facilitate the timely 

preparation of the service list(s), it is 

requested that those seeking recognition 

as interested parties to a proceeding 

contact the Department in writing 

within 10 days of the publication of the 

Notice of Initiation.Because deadlines in 

Sunset Reviews can be very short, we 

urge interested parties to apply for 

access to proprietary information under 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

immediately following publication in 

the Federal Register of the notice of 

initiation of the sunset review. The 

Department’s regulations on submission 

of proprietary information and 

eligibility to receive access to business 

proprietary information under APO can 

be found at 19 CFR 351.304–306. 

Information Required from Interested 

Parties 

Domestic interested parties (defined 

in section 771(9)(C), (D), (E), (F), and (G) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.102(b)) 

wishing to participate in these Sunset 

Reviews must respond not later than 15 

days after the date of publication in the 

Federal Register of this notice of 

initiation by filing a notice of intent to 

participate. The required contents of the 

notice of intent to participate are set 

forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii). In 

accordance with the Department’s 

regulations, if we do not receive a notice 

of intent to participate from at least one 

domestic interested party by the 15-day 

deadline, the Department will 

automatically revoke the orders without 

further review. See 19 CFR 

351.218(d)(1)(iii). 

For sunset reviews of countervailing 

duty orders, parties wishing the 

Department to consider arguments that 

countervailable subsidy programs have 

been terminated must include with their 

substantive responses information and 

documentation addressing whether the 

changes to the program were (1) limited 

to an individual firm or firms and (2) 

effected by an official act of the 

government. Further, a party claiming 

program termination is expected to 

document that there are no residual 

benefits under the program and that 

substitute programs have not been 

introduced. Cf. 19 CFR 351.526(b) and 

(d). If a party maintains that any of the 

subsidies countervailed by the 

Department were not conferred 

pursuant to a subsidy program, that 

party should nevertheless address the 

applicability of the factors set forth in 

19 CFR 351.526(b) and (d). Similarly, 

parties wishing the Department to 

consider whether a company’s change 

in ownership has extinguished the 

benefit from prior non–recurring, 

allocable, subsidies must include with 

their substantive responses information 

and documentation supporting their 

claim that all or almost all of the 

company’s shares or assets were sold in 

an arm’s length transaction, at a price 

representing fair market value, as 

described in the Notice of Final 

Modification of Agency Practice Under 

Section 123 of the Uruguay Round 

Agreements Act, 68 FR 37125 (June 23, 

2003) (Modification Notice). See 

Modification Notice for a discussion of 

the types of information and 

documentation the Department requires. 

If we receive an order–specific notice 

of intent to participate from a domestic 

interested party, the Department’s 

regulations provide that all parties 

wishing to participate in the Sunset 

Review must file complete substantive 

responses not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register of this notice of initiation. The 

required contents of a substantive 

response, on an order–specific basis, are 

set forth at 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3). Note 

that certain information requirements 

differ for respondent and domestic 

parties. Also, note that the Department’s 

information requirements are distinct 

from the Commission’s information 

requirements. Please consult the 

Department’s regulations for 

information regarding the Department’s 

conduct of Sunset Reviews.1 Please 

consult the Department’s regulations at 

19 CFR Part 351 for definitions of terms 

and for other general information 

concerning antidumping and 

countervailing duty proceedings at the 

Department. 

This notice of initiation is being 

published in accordance with section 

751(c) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(c). 

Dated: March 23, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–6071 Filed 3–30–07; 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: 

Initiation of Antidumping Duty New 

Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 2007. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

three requests for a new shipper review 

of the antidumping duty order on 

certain frozen fish fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’), received on January 31, 

February 18 and February 28, 2007, 

respectively, meet the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for initiation. 

For reasons discussed below, the 

Department also determined that a 

fourth request for a new shipper review 

does not meet the requirements for 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
15654 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 62 / Monday, April 2, 2007 / Notices 

1Therefore, a request for a new shipper review 

based on the semiannual anniversary month, 

February, was due to the Department by the final 

day of February 2007. See 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1). 

2See below in Section Initiation of New Shipper 

Reviews at B. South Vina for the requirements 

specified in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2). 

3See Petitioners’ March 15, 2007, submission at 

pages 2 and 3. 

4 Vinh Quang made no subsequent shipments to 

the United States, while Ngoc Thai made one 

subsequent shipment during the POR, which the 

Department corroborated using data from U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’). On page 2 

of its submission, Anvifish claimed no subsequent 

shipments to the United States after its first sale; 

however, the CBP data indicates that there were 

subsequent shipments made by Anvifish. 

initiation. The period of review (‘‘POR’’) 

for the three new shipper reviews which 

the Department is initiating is August 1, 

2006, through January 31, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Lai Robinson and Michael 

Holton, 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) 482–3797, 

and (202) 482–1324, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The notice announcing the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen fish fillets from Vietnam was 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 12, 2003.1 See Notice of 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 47909 

(August 12, 2003). On January 31, 

February 21, and February 28, 2007, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.214(c), the 

Department received four new shipper 

review requests from Vinh Quang 

Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Vinh Quang’’), 

Ngoc Thai Company, Ltd. (‘‘Ngoc 

Thai’’), Anvifish Co., Ltd., (‘‘Anvifish’’), 

and Southern Fishery Industries 

Company, Ltd. (‘‘South Vina’’), 

respectively. Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, 

and Anvifish certified that they are both 

the producer and exporter of the subject 

merchandise upon which the request for 

a new shipper review is based. In its 

new shipper review request dated 

February 28, 2007 (‘‘original request’’), 

South Vina claimed that it is an exporter 

of frozen fish fillets from Vietnam; 

however, it did not provide any 

information or documents supporting its 

request for a new shipper review. 

On March 8, 2007, Catfish Farmers of 

America and individual U.S. catfish 

processors (‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted 

comments requesting that the 

Department reject South Vina’s original 

request because it failed to provide any 

of the required certifications or 

documents set forth in 19 CFR 351.214.2

On March 9, 2007, South Vina 

submitted a certification and other 

supporting documents alleging that the 

certification was not available, and that 

the new shipper regulation does not 

require that the certification and 

accompanying documentation be 

submitted with the original request. 

Furthermore, South Vina claimed that 

the pertinent regulation merely requires 

that the request for review be made 

within one year of the date referred to 

in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A). On 

March 15, 2007, Petitioners submitted 

additional comments urging the 

Department to reject both South Vina’s 

original new shipper review request and 

its March 9, 2007, submission. 

Petitioners reiterated their arguments 

that South Vina’s original request failed 

to meet any of the submission 

requirements and should therefore be 

rejected. Petitioners also argued that 

South Vina’s March 9, 2007, submission 

was untimely filed and should therefore 

also be rejected. Citing 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2), Petitioners argued that 

the Department’s regulations 

unequivocally require applicants to 

include the necessary certifications and 

documentation with their new shipper 

review request. In support of their 

arguments, Petitioners also referred to 

the Department’s ‘‘standard initiation 

checklist’’ for new shipper reviews 

which indicates that, if an application 

does not satisfy the regulatory 

requirements, the applicant may only 

correct such deficiencies ‘‘{i}if 

sufficient time remains ... prior to the 

end of the appropriate anniversary 

month or semi–annual anniversary 

month.’’3 Petitioners contended that the 

submission deadline in this case was 

February 28, 2007. In other words, 

Petitioners argued that South Vina 

should have submitted all of the 

regulatory requirements, including the 

submission of the certifications and 

supporting documentation, by the 

deadline, February 28, 2007. Because 

South Vina failed to do so in its original 

request, Petitioners argued that South 

Vina’s submissions should be rejected. 

On March 22, 2007, South Vina 

submitted a response to Petitioners’

objections of March 15, 2007, 

comments. Citing several cases in which 

the Department sent supplemental 

questionnaires prior to initiation, South 

Vina argued that the Department should 

keep South Vina’s March 9, 2007, 

supporting documentation and initiate a 

new shipper review. 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) of 

the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended (‘‘the 

Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(i), Vinh 

Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish 

certified that they did not export certain 

frozen fish fillets to the United States 

during the period of investigation 

(‘‘POI’’). In addition, pursuant to section 

751(a)(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A), Vinh Quang, Ngoc 

Thai, and Anvifish certified that, since 

the initiation of the investigation, they 

have never been affiliated with any 

Vietnamese exporter or producer who 

exported certain frozen fish fillets to the 

United States during the POI, including 

those not individually examined during 

the investigation. As required by 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iii)(B), Vinh Quang, Ngoc 

Thai, and Anvifish also certified that 

their export activities were not 

controlled by the central government of 

Vietnam. 

In addition to the certifications 

described above, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv), Vinh Quang, Ngoc 

Thai, and Anvifish submitted 

documentation establishing the 

following: (1) The date on which Vinh 

Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish first 

shipped certain frozen fish fillets for 

export to the United States and the date 

on which the frozen fish fillets were 

first entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption; (2) the 

volume of their first shipment;4 and (3) 

the date of their first sale to an 

unaffiliated customer in the United 

States. 

The Department conducted CBP 

database queries to confirm that Vinh 

Quang, Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish’s 

shipments of subject merchandise had 

entered the United States for 

consumption and that liquidation of 

such entries had been properly 

suspended for antidumping duties. 

Initiation of New Shipper Reviews 

A. Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, and 

Anvifish 

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1), the 

Department finds that Vinh Quang, 

Ngoc Thai, and Anvifish’s requests meet 

the threshold requirements for initiation 

of a new shipper review for the 

shipment of certain frozen fish fillets 

from Vietnam they produced and 

exported. See Memorandum to File from 

Cindy Lai Robinson, Senior Analyst, 

through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, Initiaion of AD New 

Shipper Review: Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from Vietnam (A–552–801), dated 

March 26, 2007. 

B. South Vina 

The Department finds that South 

Vina’s original review request dated 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 62 / Monday, April 2, 2007 / Notices 15655 

February 28, 2007, did not provide any 

required supporting documents and 

therefore, it does not meet the threshold 

requirements for initiation of a new 

shipper review for the shipment of 

certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, 

pursuant to sections 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) 

and (II) of the Act, and 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(i), 351.214(b)(2)(iii)(A) 

and (B), and 351.214(b)(2)(iv). With 

respect to South Vina’s submission on 

March 9, 2007, the Department agrees 

with Petitioners that it was submitted 

untimely for this semi–annual 

anniversary month because it was 

received nine days after the deadline, 

February 28, 2007, which is the last day 

of the semi–annual anniversary month. 

The Department disagrees with South 

Vina’s arguments that: (1) the new 

shipper regulation does not require that 

the certification and accompanying 

documentation be submitted with the 

original request; and (2) the pertinent 

regulation merely requires that the 

request for review be made ‘‘within one 

year of the date referred to’’ in 

paragraph 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A). 

To the contrary, 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2) 

clearly specifies the ‘‘contents of 

request,’’ which includes: (1) A 

certification from the requester or its 

producer stating that no subject 

merchandise was exported to the United 

States (‘‘U.S.’’) during the POI; (2) a 

certification stating that since the 

initiation of the investigation, the 

requester has never been affiliated with 

any exporter or producer who exported 

subject merchandise to the U.S. during 

the POI; (3) a certification stating no 

government control over the requester’s 

export activities in a nonmarket 

economy case; and (4) information 

regarding the date of the requester’s first 

entry or shipment of subject 

merchandise, the volume of the first and 

all subsequent shipments of subject 

merchandise to the U.S., and the date of 

requester’s first sale to an unaffiliated 

U.S. customer. Furthermore, 19 CFR 

351.214(a) points out that the purpose of 

the URAA to establish a new shipper 

review procedure is to allow new 

shippers the opportunity to attain their 

own individual dumping margin on an 

expedited basis. In accordance with 19 

CFR 351.214(d), the Department is 

required to initiate the new shipper 

review within a month immediately 

following the semi–annual anniversary 

month or the anniversary month 

depending on the date of the request. 

Accordingly, the Department must have 

all required supporting documents on 

the record by the submission deadline 

in order to initiate a new shipper review 

in a timely manner. 

As noted above, on March 22, 2007, 

South Vina submitted a list of cases 

where the Department sent 

supplemental questionnaires prior to 

initiation and therefore, South Vina 

argues, the Department should accept its 

March 9, 2007, supporting 

documentation and initiate a new 

shipper review. However, in each case 

cited by South Vina, the requestor 

included the documents required by 

section 351.214(b)(2) in its original 

request, which South Vina did not 

include in its February 28, 2007, 

request. Because South Vina did not 

provide any of the ‘‘contents of request’’

in its original request, and its 

submission on March 9, 2007, is 

untimely, the Department has 

determined that South Vina’s request 

does not meet the statutory and 

regulatory requirements for initiation. 

Therefore, the Department has removed 

South Vina’s February 28, 2007, and its 

March 9, 2007, submissions from the 

record, and rejected South Vina’s new 

shipper review request, in accordance 

with sections 751(a)(2)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of 

the Act, and 19 CFR 351.214. 

The POR for the three new shipper 

reviews is August 1, 2006, through 

January 31, 2007. See 19 CFR 

351.214(g)(1)(ii)(A). The Department 

intends to issue the preliminary results 

of these reviews no later than 180 days 

from the date of initiation, and final 

results of these reviews no later than 

270 days from the date of initiation. See 

section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act. 

Interested parties requiring access to 

proprietary information in this new 

shipper review should submit 

applications for disclosure under 

administrative protective order in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305 and 

351.306. This initiation and notice are 

published in accordance with section 

751(a)(2)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214 and 351.221(c)(1)(i). 

Dated: March 26, 2007. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E7–6063 Filed 3–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–863) 

Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China: Expedited Partial Final Results 

of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On January 3, 2007, the 

Department published the Preliminary 

Results of the fourth administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on honey from the People’s Republic of 

China (PRC). See Honey from the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 102 (January 3, 2007) 

(Preliminary Results). This review 

covers five exporters or producer/ 

exporters: (1) Anhui Honghui Foodstuff 

(Group) Co., Ltd. (Anhui Honghui); (2) 

Chengdu Waiyuan Bee Products Co., 

Ltd. (Chengdu); (3) Jiangsu Kanghong 

Natural Healthfoods Co., Ltd. (Jiangsu); 

(4) Kunshan Xin’an Trade Co., Ltd. 

(Kunshan Xin’an); and (5) Wuhan 

Shino–Food Trade Co., Ltd. (Shino–

Food). The period of review (POR) is 

December 1, 2004, through November 

30, 2005. 

In response to a request from the 

American Honey Producers Association 

and the Sioux Honey Association 

(collectively, petitioners), the 

Department is expediting the final 

results of this review for Chengdu, an 

uncooperative respondent, because of 

its extraordinary surge of exports and 

the significant difference between 

Chengdu’s current cash deposit rate of 

22.03 percent and Chengdu’s 

preliminary cash deposit rate of 212.39 

percent based on total facts available 

with adverse inference. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 2, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy 

Lao or Angelica Mendoza, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 7, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–7924 or (202) 482–

3019, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the Preliminary Results the 

following events have occurred. On 

January 12 and 29, 2007, counsel to the 

petitioners met with Department 

officials to discuss their concerns about 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with NOTICES