[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15653-15655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6063]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 15654]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Therefore, 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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{time} 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See below in Section Initiation of New Shipper Reviews at B. 
South Vina for the requirements specified in 19 CFR 351.214(b)(2).
    \3\ See Petitioners' March 15, 2007, submission at pages 2 and 
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 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