Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 12801 

1Hilltop International, Yangjiang City Yelin 

Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., Fuqing 

Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd., Ocean Duke 

Corporation and Kingston Foods Corporation 

(collectively, ‘‘Hilltop’’). 2See Letter from Hilltop regarding Request for 

Administrative Review and Company-Specific 

Revocation dated February 28, 2011 (‘‘Revocation 

Request’’). 

3See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in 

Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review, 76 FR 

17825 (March 31, 2011) (‘‘Initiation’’). 

4See Letter from Domestic Processors regarding 

Verification Request for Hilltop International dated 

July 11, 2011. 

5Companies have the opportunity to submit 

statements certifying that they did not enter, export 

or sell subject merchandise to the United States 

during the POR. 

6See Letter from Shantou Yuexing regarding 

Request for Rescinding an Administrative Review 

dated March 29, 2011. 

7See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, 

Office 9, from Bob Palmer, Case Analyst, Office 9, 

‘‘Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review,’’ dated May 9, 

2011. 

8See Letter from Catherine Bertrand, Program 

Manager, Office 9, to All Interested Parties dated 

June 21, 2011. 

9See Letter from Petitioners regarding Comments 

on Surrogate Country Selection for the Sixth 

Administrative Review (2010–2011) dated August 

4, 2011 (‘‘Petitioners SC Comments’’). 

10See Letter from Hilltop regarding Surrogate 

Country Comment dated September 2, 2011 

(‘‘Hilltop SC Comments’’). 

11See Letter from Domestic Processors regarding 

Surrogate Country Comments dated September 7, 

2011 (‘‘Domestic Processors SC Comments’’). 

12See Letter from Petitioners regarding Data on 

Surrogate Values for the Sixth Administrative 

Review (2010–2011) dated September 23, 2011 

(‘‘Petitioners’ SV Submission’’). 

13See Letter from Hilltop regarding Hilltop 

Group’s First Surrogate Value Submission dated 

September 26, 2011 (‘‘Hilltop SV Submission’’). 

14See Letter from Hilltop regarding First 

Surrogate Value Rebuttal dated October 12, 2011 

(‘‘Hilltop SV Rebuttal’’). 

These five-year (sunset) reviews and 

notice are in accordance with section 

751(d)(2) of the Act and published 

pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: February 24, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5024 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–893] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results, Partial 

Rescission, Extension of Time Limits 

for the Final Results, and Intent To 

Revoke, in Part, of the Sixth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) of February 1, 2010, through 

January 31, 2011. As discussed below, 

the Department preliminarily 

determines that the respondents in this 

review did not make sales in the United 

States at prices below normal value 

(‘‘NV’’) during the POR. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 2, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kabir Archuletta or Bob Palmer, 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) 482–2593 or (202) 482– 

9068, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department received timely 

requests from the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee (‘‘Petitioners’’), the 

American Shrimp Processors 

Association (‘‘Domestic Processors’’), 

Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine 

Resources Co., Ltd. (‘‘Regal’’), and 

Hilltop 1 in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.213(b), during the anniversary 

month of February, for administrative 

reviews of the antidumping duty order 

on shrimp from the PRC. The request for 

review submitted by Hilltop also 

included a request for company-specific 

revocation, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2).2 On March 31, 2011, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review of 84 producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC.3 On 

July 11, 2011, the Department received 

a submission from Domestic Processors 

requesting that the Department verify 

the factual information submitted by 

Hilltop, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.307(b)(v)(A).4

On March 29, 2011, the Department 

received a ‘‘no shipment certification’’ 5

from Shantou Yuexing Enterprise 

Company. In its certification, Shantou 

Yuexing Enterprise Company also 

requested that the Department rescind 

the review with respect to Shantou 

Yuexing Enterprise Company, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).6

Respondent Selection 

On May 9, 2011, in accordance with 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), the 

Department selected Hilltop and Regal 

for individual examination in this 

review, since they were the largest 

exporters by volume during the POR, 

based on U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’) data of U.S. 

imports.7

Questionnaires 

On May 9, 2011, the Department 

issued its initial non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’) antidumping duty 

questionnaire to Hilltop and Regal, and 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

Hilltop and Regal between July 2011 

and January 2012. Hilltop and Regal 

responded to the Department’s initial 

and subsequent supplemental 

questionnaires between August 2011 

and January 2012. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On June 21, 2011, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on the surrogate country and 

information pertaining to the valuation 

of factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’).8 On 

August 4, 2011, Petitioners submitted 

comments on the selection of a 

surrogate country, stating that Thailand 

was the appropriate surrogate country 

for this review.9 On September 2, 2011, 

Hilltop submitted comments on the 

selection of a surrogate country, arguing 

that India, while not on the surrogate 

country list, is the appropriate surrogate 

country for this review.10 On September 

7, 2011, Domestic Processors submitted 

rebuttal comments to Hilltop’s 

submission, stating that India is no 

longer the most appropriate surrogate 

country for this proceeding.11 On 

September 23, 2011, the Department 

received comments from Petitioners 

regarding the valuation of FOPs.12 On 

September 26, 2011, the Department 

received comments from Hilltop 

regarding the valuation of FOPs.13 On 

October 12, 2011, the Department 

received rebuttal comments from 

Hilltop regarding the valuation of 

FOPs.14 For a detailed discussion of the 

selection of the surrogate country, see 

‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section below. 

Case Schedule 

On August 16, 2011, in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

extended the time period for issuing the 

preliminary results by 120 days, until 

February 28, 2012. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s 

Republic of China: Extension of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12802 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 

15On February 10, 2012, Domestic Processors 

submitted comments alleging discrepancies 

between the CBP data released by the Department 

for purposes of respondent selection and the sales 

quantities reported by Regal. See Domestic 

Processors’ Comments on Subject Merchandise 

Covered in the Sixth Administrative Review dated 

February 10, 2012. However, due to its submission 

in close proximity to the preliminary results 

deadline, the Department is not addressing those 

comments at this time. However, Domestic 

Processors’ comments will be closely reviewed and 

appropriately addressed for the final results of this 

review. 

16 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, 

which includes the telson and the uropods. 

17On April 26, 2011, the Department amended 

the antidumping duty order to include dusted 

shrimp, pursuant to the U.S. Court of International 

Trade (‘‘CIT’’) decision in Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 

1330 (CIT 2010) and the U.S. International Trade 

Commission (‘‘ITC’’) determination, which found 

the domestic like product to include dusted shrimp. 

Because the amendment of the antidumping duty 

order occurred after this POR, dusted shrimp 

continue to be excluded in this review. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, the 

People’s Republic of China, Thailand, and the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended 

Antidumping Duty Orders in Accordance with Final 

Court Decision, 76 FR 23277 (April 26, 2011); see 

also Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee v. 

United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (CIT 2010) and 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, China, 

India, Thailand, and Vietnam (Investigation Nos. 

731–TA–1063, 1064, 1066–1068 (Review), USITC 

Publication 4221, March 2011. However, we note 

that this review only covers suspended entries that 

did not include dusted shrimp, but cash deposits 

going forward will apply to dusted shrimp. 

18See Revocation Request and Hilltop’s Third 

Supplemental questionnaire response dated 

December 7, 2011 (‘‘Hilltop Third Supplemental 

Questionnaire’’), at Exhibit 4. 19See id. 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

50718 (August 16, 2011).15

Scope of the Order 

The scope of the order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm-raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shellon or peeled, tail-on or tail-off,16

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 

the order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTS’’), 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, white-leg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguinensis, 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 the order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of the order. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTS 

subheading 1605.20.1020); (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 0306.23.0020 and 

0306.23.0040); (4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.0510); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) Lee Kum Kee’s shrimp 

sauce; (7) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.1040); (8) certain dusted 

shrimp; 17 and (9) certain battered 

shrimp. Dusted shrimp is a shrimpbased 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 individually quick 

frozen (‘‘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 the order are 

currently classified under the following 

HTS subheadings: 0306.13.0003, 

0306.13.0006, 0306.13.0009, 

0306.13.0012, 0306.13.0015, 

0306.13.0018, 0306.13.0021, 

0306.13.0024, 0306.13.0027, 

0306.13.0040, 0306.17.0003, 

0306.17.0006, 0306.17.0009, 

0306.17.0012, 0306.17.0015, 

0306.17.0018, 0306.17.0021, 

0306.17.0024, 0306.17.0027, 

0306.17.0040, 1605.20.1010, 

1605.20.1030, 1605.21.1030, and 

1605.29.1010. These HTS subheadings 

are provided for convenience and for 

customs purposes only and are not 

dispositive, but rather the written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Intent to Revoke, In Part 

As noted above, in its request for 

review, Hilltop submitted a request for 

company-specific revocation pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.222(e). Pursuant to 

section 751(d) of the Act, the 

Department ‘‘may revoke, in whole or in 

part’’ an antidumping duty order upon 

completion of a review under section 

751(a) of the Act. In determining 

whether to revoke an antidumping duty 

order in part, the Department considers: 

(1) Whether the company in question 

has sold subject merchandise at not less 

than NV for a period of at least three 

consecutive years; (2) whether during 

each of the three consecutive years for 

which the company sold the 

merchandise at not less than normal 

value, it sold the merchandise to the 

United States in commercial quantities; 

and (3) the company has agreed in 

writing to its immediate reinstatement 

in the order, as long as any exporter or 

producer is subject to the order, if the 

Department concludes that the 

company, subsequent to revocation, 

sold the subject merchandise at less 

than NV. See 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1). 

Hilltop’s request for revocation was 

accompanied by certifications, pursuant 

to 19 CFR 351.222(e)(1), stating that 

Hilltop and its U.S. affiliates have sold 

subject merchandise at not less than NV 

for at least three consecutive review 

periods and that they will not sell the 

merchandise at less than NV in the 

future, and that Hilltop and its U.S. 

affiliates sold subject merchandise to 

the United States in commercial 

quantities for at least three consecutive 

review periods.18 Hilltop and its U.S. 

affiliates also agreed to immediate 

reinstatement of the antidumping duty 

order, as long as any exporter or 

producer is subject to the order, if the 

Department concludes that, subsequent 

to its revocation, they sold the subject 

merchandise at less than NV.19

We have preliminarily determined 

that the request from Hilltop meets all 

of the criteria under 19 CFR 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 12803 

20See Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 

49460 (August 13, 2010), and Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940 (August 19, 

2011). 

21See Hilltop Third Supplemental Questionnaire, 

at Exhibit 3. 

22See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 

the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

and Preliminary Partial Rescission of Fifth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

8338 (February 14, 2011) (‘‘PRC Shrimp AR5 

Prelim’’); unchanged in Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 51940, 51941–42 

(August 19, 2011) (‘‘PRC Shrimp AR5 Final’’). 

23See Hilltop’s Section C questionnaire response 

dated July 14, 2011 (‘‘Hilltop SCQR’’), at 1; see also 

Hilltop’s Supplemental Section A questionnaire 

response dated August 14, 2011 (‘‘Hilltop Supp A’’), 

at 6. 

24See Hilltop’s Supp A at 1 and Hilltop’s 

Supplemental ACD questionnaire response dated 

September 14, 2011 (‘‘Hilltop SuppACD’’), at 

Exhibit SS–2. 

25See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27393 (May 19, 1997). 

26See Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Notice of 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 65453, 65454 (October 25, 2010); 

Certain Circular Welded Carbon Steel Pipes and 

Tubes from Taiwan: Notice of Intent to Rescind 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 3559, 3560 (January 

21, 2009); and Certain In–Shell Raw Pistachios from 

Iran: Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 9292, 9293 (February 

20, 2008). 

27See, e.g., Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Third Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 72 

FR 53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), unchanged 

in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 

73 FR 15479, 15480 (March 24, 2008). 

28See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2004/2005 Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper Review, 71 

FR 66304 (November 14, 2006). 

29See section 771(18)(C) of the Act. 

30See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical 

Continued 

351.222(e)(1). Our preliminary margin 

calculation confirms that Hilltop and its 

U.S. affiliates sold subject merchandise 

at not less than NV during the current 

review period. See the ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of the Review’’ section below. In 

addition, we have confirmed that 

Hilltop and its U.S. affiliates sold 

subject merchandise at not less than NV 

in the two previous administrative 

reviews in which Hilltop was 

individually examined (i.e., its dumping 

margins were zero or de minimis).20

Based on our examination of the sales 

data submitted by Hilltop and its U.S. 

affiliates, we preliminarily determine 

that they sold subject merchandise in 

the United States in commercial 

quantities in each of the consecutive 

review periods cited by Hilltop and its 

U.S. affiliates to support their request 

for revocation.21 Thus, we preliminarily 

find that Hilltop had a zero or de 

minimis dumping margin for each of the 

last three years and sold subject 

merchandise in commercial quantities 

during each of these years. Also, we 

preliminarily determine, pursuant to 

section 751(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.222(b)(2), that the application of the 

antidumping duty order with respect to 

Hilltop is no longer warranted for the 

following reasons: (1) The company had 

a zero or de minimis margin for a period 

of at least three consecutive years; (2) 

the company has agreed to immediate 

reinstatement of the order if the 

Department finds that it has resumed 

making sales at less than NV; and, (3) 

the continued application of the order is 

not otherwise necessary to offset 

dumping. Therefore, we preliminarily 

determine that subject merchandise 

produced and/or exported by Hilltop 

qualifies for revocation from the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC. 

If these preliminary findings are 

affirmed in our final results, we will 

revoke this order, in part, with respect 

to certain frozen warmwater shrimp 

produced and/or exported by Hilltop 

and, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.222(f)(3), terminate the suspension 

of liquidation for any of the 

merchandise in question that is entered, 

or withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption on or after February 1, 

2011, and instruct CBP to release any 

cash deposits for such entries. 

Affiliation/Single Entity 

In the fifth administrative review of 

this proceeding, we found Hilltop 

affiliated with Yangjiang City Yelin 

Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd., 

Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., Ltd., 

Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty 

Corporation, Ever Hope International 

Co., Ltd., and Ocean Duke Corporation. 

Further, we found Hilltop, Yelin 

Enterprise Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty 

Corporation, and Ever Hope 

International Co., Ltd. to be a single 

entity.22 Hilltop has not submitted any 

information in this review that would 

warrant any change to our finding in the 

fifth administrative review. However, in 

this administrative review, Hilltop 

stated in its questionnaire responses 

that the only affiliation change since the 

previous review was the establishment 

of a new U.S. affiliate, Kingston Foods 

Corporation (‘‘Kingston’’).23 Hilltop 

described Kingston’s ownership and 

submitted an affiliation chart showing 

Kingston’s relationship to Hilltop and 

its other affiliates.24 Accordingly, we 

preliminarily determine that Kingston is 

an affiliate of Hilltop pursuant to 

sections 771(33)(A) and (F) of the Act, 

based on common ownership and 

control by a family grouping. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Review 

As discussed in the Background 

section above, Shantou Yuexing 

Enterprise Company filed a no shipment 

certification indicating that it did not 

export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. The 

Department’s practice concerning ‘‘noshipment’’ respondents has been to 

rescind the administrative review if the 

respondent certifies that it had no 

shipments and the Department has 

confirmed through its examination of 

data from CBP that there were no 

shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR.25

On May 19, 2011, the Department sent 

an inquiry to CBP to determine whether 

CBP entry data is consistent with 

Shantou Yuexing Enterprise Company’s 

no shipments certification and received 

no information contrary to that 

statement. As CBP only responds to the 

Department’s inquiry when there are 

records of shipments from the company 

in question 26 and no party submitted 

comments, we preliminarily determine 

that Shantou Yuexing Enterprise 

Company had no shipments during the 

POR. Therefore, we are preliminarily 

rescinding the review with respect to 

Shantou Yuexing Enterprise 

Company.27

NME Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority.28 Accordingly, 

we calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

A designation of a country as an NME 

remains in effect until it is revoked by 

the Department.29 Accordingly, there is 

a rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the PRC are subject to 

government control and, thus, should be 

assessed a single antidumping duty 

rate.30


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12804 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 

Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 

Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 53079 (September 8, 2006); Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Partial 

Affirmative Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades and Parts 

Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 

29303 (May 22, 2006). 

31 In the Initiation, the Department inadvertently 

stated that Separate Rate Certifications are due no 

later than 30 days after publication of the initiation 

notice, rather than the standard deadline of 60 days. 

This was corrected in Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews; 

Correction, 76 FR 24855 (May 3, 2011). 

32See, e.g., Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review: Petroleum Wax Candles 

From the People’s Republic of China, 72 FR 52355, 

52356 (September 13, 2007). 

33See Hilltop’s Section A questionnaire response 

dated June 15, 2011 (‘‘Hilltop SAQR’’), at 3–4, and 

Regal’s Section A questionnaire response dated 

June 10, 2011 (‘‘Regal SAQR’’), at 2. 

34See Hilltop SAQR at 1. 

35See Regal SAQR at 2. 

36See Brake Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

the Fourth New Shipper Review and Rescission of 

the Third Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 66 FR 1303, 1306 (January 8, 2001), 

unchanged in Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of Fourth New Shipper Review and 

Rescission of Third Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 66 FR 27063 (May 16, 

2001); Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate From 

the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104 

(December 20, 1999). 

37Those companies are: Allied Pacific Aquatic 

Products Zhanjiang Co Ltd., Allied Pacific Food 

(Dalian) Co., Ltd., Asian Seafoods (Zhanjiang) Co., 

Ltd., Beihai Evergreen Aquatic Product Science 

And Technology Co Ltd., Beihai Qinguo Frozen 

Foods Co., Ltd., Capital Prospect, Dalian Hualian 

Foods Co., Ltd., Dalian Shanhai Seafood Co., Ltd., 

Dalian Z&H Seafood Co., Ltd., Ever Hope 

International Co., Ltd., Everflow Ind. Supply, Flags 

Wins Trading Co., Ltd., Fuchang Aquatic Products 

Freezing, Fujian Chaohui International Trading, 

Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd., Fuqing Yihua 

Aquatic Food Co., Ltd., Fuqing Yiyuan Trading Co., 

Ltd., Gallant Ocean (Nanhai), Ltd., Guangdong 

Jiahuang Foods, Guangdong Jinhang Foods Co., 

Ltd., Guangdong Wanya Foods Fty. Co., Ltd., Hai 

Li Aquatic Co., Ltd., Hainan Brich Aquatic Products 

Co., Ltd., Hainan Golden Spring Foods Co., Ltd., 

Hainan Hailisheng Food Co., Ltd., Hainan Seaberry 

Seafoods Corporation, Hainan Xiangtai Fishery Co., 

Ltd., Haizhou Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Hua Yang 

(Dalian) International, Jet Power International Ltd., 

Jin Cheng Food Co., Ltd., Leizhou Yunyuan Aquatic 

Products Co., Ltd., Maple Leaf Foods International, 

North Seafood Group Co., Panasonic Mfg. Xiamen 

Co., Phoenix Intl., Rizhao Smart Foods, Ruı ́an 

Huasheng Aquatic Products Processing Factory, 

Savvy Seafood Inc., Sea Trade International Inc., 

Shanghai Linghai Fisheries Trading Co. Ltd., 

Shanghai Smiling Food Co., Ltd., Shanghai 

Zhoulian Foods Co., Ltd., Shantou Jiazhou Foods 

Industry, Shantou Jin Cheng Food Co., Ltd., 

Shantou Longfeng Foodstuff Co., Ltd., Shantou 

Longsheng Aquatic Product Foodstuff Co., Ltd., 

Shantou Ruiyuan Industry Company Ltd., Shantou 

Wanya Foods Fty. Co., Ltd., Shantou Xinwanya 

Aquatic Product Ltd Company, Shantou Yue Xiang 

Commercial Trading Co., Ltd., Shengsi Huali 

Aquatic Co., Ltd., SLK Hardware, Thai Royal 

Frozen Food Zhanjiang Co., Ltd., Tongwei Hainan 

Aquatic Products Co. Ltd., Top One Intl., Xiamen 

Granda Import & Export Co., Ltd., Xinjiang Top 

Agricultural Products Co., Ltd., Xinxing Aquatic 

Products Processing Factory, Yancheng Hi-king 

Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd., Yangjiang 

Wanshida Seafood Co., Ltd., Yelin Enterprise Co., 

Ltd., Zhangzhou Xinwanya Aquatic Product, 

Zhanjiang East Sea Kelon Aquatic Products Co. 

Ltd., Zhanjiang Evergreen Aquatic Product Science 

and Technology Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang Fuchang 

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang Go Harvest 

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang Haizhou 

Aquatic Product Co. Ltd., Zhanjiang Jinguo Marine 

Foods Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang Longwei Aquatic 

Products Industry Co., Ltd., Zhanjiang Universal 

Seafood Corp., Zhejiang Daishan Baofa Aquatic 

Products Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Industrial Group Co., 

Ltd., Zhejiang Shaoxing Green Vegetable Instant 

Freezing Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Zhoufu Food Co., Ltd., 

Zhongshan Foodstuffs & Aquatic Imp. & Exp. Group 

Co. Ltd. of Guangdong, Zhoushan City Shengtai 

Aquatic Co., Zhoushan Junwei Aquatic Product Co. 

Ltd., Zhoushan Lianghong Aquatic Foods Co. Ltd., 

Zhoushan Mingyu Aquatic Product Co. Ltd., and 

Zhoushan Putuo Huafa Sea Products Co., Ltd. 

In the Initiation, the Department 

notified parties of the application 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate rate 

status in NME proceedings. See 

Initiation.31 It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of the 

merchandise subject to review in NME 

countries a single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to exports. To establish 

whether a company is sufficiently 

independent to be entitled to a separate, 

company-specific rate, the Department 

analyzes each exporting entity in an 

NME country under the test established 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Sparklers From the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991), as amplified by Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide From 

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 

22585 (May 2, 1994). However, if the 

Department determines that a company 

is wholly foreign-owned or located in a 

market economy, then a further separate 

rate analysis is not necessary to 

determine whether it is independent 

from government control.32

In this administrative review, the 

Department received completed 

responses to the Section A portion of 

the NME antidumping questionnaire 

from Hilltop and Regal, which 

contained information pertaining to the 

companies’ eligibility for a separate 

rate.33 All other companies upon which 

the Department initiated an 

administrative review that have not 

been rescinded did not submit either a 

separate rate application or certification. 

Therefore, we have determined it 

appropriate to find that these companies 

did not demonstrate their eligibility for 

separate rate status and are properly 

considered part of the PRC-wide entity. 

Separate Rate Recipients 

Wholly Foreign-Owned 

Hilltop has reported that it is a Hong 

Kong based exporter of subject 

merchandise.34 Regal has reported that 

it is a wholly foreign-owned 

enterprise.35 Therefore, there is no PRC 

ownership of Hilltop or Regal, and 

because the Department has no evidence 

indicating that either of these 

companies are under the control of the 

PRC, further separate rate analysis is not 

necessary to determine whether they are 

independent from government 

control.36 Consequently, we 

preliminarily determine that Hilltop and 

Regal have met the criteria for a separate 

rate. 

In the Initiation, we instructed all 

companies requesting separate rate 

status in this administrative review to 

submit, as appropriate, either a separate 

rate status application or certification. 

As discussed above, the Department 

initiated this administrative review with 

respect to 84 companies and is 

preliminarily rescinding this review 

with respect to Shantou Yuexing 

Enterprise Company. Thus, including 

Hilltop and Regal, 83 companies remain 

subject to this review. While Hilltop and 

Regal provided documentation 

supporting their eligibility for a separate 

rate, the remaining companies under 

active review have not demonstrated 

their eligibility for a separate rate. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

determines that there were exports of 

merchandise under review from 81 PRC 

exporters that did not demonstrate their 

eligibility for separate rate status.37 As 

a result, the Department is treating these 

81 PRC exporters as part of the PRCwide entity, subject to the PRC-wide 

rate. 

PRC-Wide Entity 

We have preliminarily determined 

that 81 companies did not demonstrate 

their eligibility for a separate rate and 

are properly considered part of the PRCwide entity. As explained above in the 

Separate Rates section, all companies 

within the PRC are considered to be 

subject to government control unless 

they are able to demonstrate an absence 

of government control with respect to 

their export activities. Such companies 

are thus assigned a single antidumping 

duty rate distinct from the separate 

rate(s) determined for companies that 

are found to be independent of 

government control with respect to their 

export activities. We consider the 

influence that the government has been 

found to have over the economy to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 12805 

38See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, and Affirmative Critical 

Circumstances, In Part: Certain Lined Paper 

Products From the People’s Republic of China, 71 

FR 53079, 53080 (September 8, 2006). 

39Available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/bull04- 

1.html 

40See Petitioners SC Comments, at 3 and 5. 

41See id., at 4–6. 

42See Hilltop SC Comments, at 1–4. 

43See id., at 4–5. 

44See Domestic Processors SC Comments, 

at 2–3. 

45See id., at 3–4. 

46See id., at 4–5. 

47See Surrogate Country List. 

48See Certain Steel Wheels From the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Partial Affirmative Preliminary Determination of 

Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final 

Determination, 76 FR 67703, 67708 (November 2, 

2011) (‘‘Steel Wheels’’). 

49See Policy Bulletin. 

50See id. 

51The Policy Bulletin also states that ‘‘if 

considering a producer of identical merchandise 

leads to data difficulties, the operations team may 

consider countries that produce a broader category 

of reasonably comparable merchandise.’’ See id., at 

note 6. 

52See Sebacic Acid from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 65674 (December 15, 

1997) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1 (to impose a 

Continued 

warrant determining a rate for the entity 

that is distinct from the rates found for 

companies that have provided sufficient 

evidence to establish that they operate 

freely with respect to their export 

activities.38 Therefore, we are assigning 

as the entity’s current rate 112.81 

percent, the only rate ever determined 

for the PRC-wide entity in this 

proceeding. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and significant producers 

of comparable merchandise. The 

sources of the surrogate factor values are 

discussed under the Normal Value 

section below and in the Memorandum 

to the File through Catherine Bertrand, 

Program Manager, Office 9, from Kabir 

Archuletta, Case Analyst, Office 9, 

‘‘Sixth Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

People’s Republic of China: Surrogate 

Factor Valuations for the Preliminary 

Results,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘Surrogate Value Memo’’). 

As discussed in the NME Country 

Status section, above, the Department 

considers the PRC to be an NME 

country. The Department determined 

that Colombia, Indonesia, the 

Philippines, South Africa, Thailand, 

and Ukraine are countries comparable to 

the PRC in terms of economic 

development. See the Department’s 

letter to All Interested Parties, dated 

June 21, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country 

List’’). Moreover, it is the Department’s 

practice to select an appropriate 

surrogate country based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

these countries. See Department Policy 

Bulletin No. 04.1: Non-Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process, 

dated March 1, 2004 (‘‘Policy 

Bulletin’’).39

Petitioners submit that of the 

countries listed on the Department’s 

Surrogate Country List, Thailand is the 

closest to the PRC in its level of 

economic development, and therefore, 

the most suitable surrogate country in 

this review.40 Petitioners further argue 

that Thailand is a producer of 

comparable merchandise and has 

publicly available pricing data and 

financial statements.41

Hilltop argues that the Department 

should select India as the primary 

surrogate country, as it has in every 

segment since the investigation, 

because: (1) The World Bank classifies 

both India and China as lower-middleincome countries; (2) India is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise; and (3) Indian pricing 

information continues to be the most 

highly vetted, reliable and best 

corroborated publicly available data.42

However, Hilltop states that should the 

Department select a surrogate country 

from its Surrogate Country List, there is 

data from Thailand that could serve for 

purposes of valuing FOPs in 

conjunction with Indian data.43

In rebuttal, Domestic Processors argue 

that the fact that India was selected as 

the primary surrogate country in prior 

segments does not support ignoring 

changes in the economic comparability 

of India and the PRC.44 Domestic 

Processors state that while both India 

and the PRC are classified by the World 

Bank as lower-middle-income countries, 

the Department cannot ignore specific 

income data in favor of less meaningful 

country classifications to determine 

economic comparability.45 Domestic 

Processors argue that Thailand, the 

Philippines and Indonesia are 

economically comparable to the PRC 

and significant producers of subject 

merchandise, whereas India is not 

economically comparable to the PRC.46

Economic Comparability 

As explained in our Surrogate 

Country List, the Department considers 

Colombia, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

South Africa, Thailand, and Ukraine as 

all comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development.47 Therefore, we 

consider all six countries on the 

Surrogate Country List as having met 

this prong of the surrogate country 

selection criteria. Furthermore, we note 

that in Steel Wheels,48 the Department 

stated that ‘‘unless we find that all of 

the countries determined to be equally 

economically comparable are not 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise, do not provide a reliable 

source of publicly available surrogate 

data or are unsuitable for use for other 

reasons, we will rely on data from one 

of these countries.’’ Because the 

Department finds that one of these 

countries from the Surrogate Country 

List meets the selection criteria, as 

explained below, the Department is not 

considering India as the primary 

surrogate country. 

Significant Producers of Comparable 

Merchandise 

Section 773(c)(4)(B) of the Act 

requires the Department to value FOPs 

in a surrogate country that is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise. Neither the statute nor the 

Department’s regulations provide 

further guidance on what may be 

considered comparable merchandise. 

Given the absence of any definition in 

the statute or regulations, the 

Department looks to other sources such 

as the Policy Bulletin for guidance on 

defining comparable merchandise. The 

Policy Bulletin states that ‘‘the terms 

‘comparable level of economic 

development,’ ‘comparable 

merchandise,’ and ‘significant producer’ 

are not defined in the statute.’’ 49 The 

Policy Bulletin further states that ‘‘in all 

cases, if identical merchandise is 

produced, the country qualifies as a 

producer of comparable 

merchandise.’’ 50 Conversely, if 

identical merchandise is not produced, 

then a country producing comparable 

merchandise is sufficient in selecting a 

surrogate country.51 Further, when 

selecting a surrogate country, the statute 

requires the Department to consider the 

comparability of the merchandise, not 

the comparability of the industry.52 ‘‘In 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12806 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 

requirement that merchandise must be produced by 

the same process and share the same end uses to 

be considered comparable would be contrary to the 

intent of the statute). 

53See Policy Bulletin, at 2. 

54See id., at 3. 

55See section 773(c) of the Act; Nation Ford 

Chem. Co. v. United States, 166 F.3d 1373, 1377 

(Fed. Cir. 1990). 

56See Conference Report to the 1988 Omnibus 

Trade & Competitiveness Act, H.R. Rep. No. 100– 

576, at 590 (1988). 

57See Policy Bulletin. 

58See Petitioners’ SV Submission; Hilltop SV 

Submission; and Hilltop SV Rebuttal. 

59See Regal’s supplemental questionnaire dated 

September 6, 2011, at S–5 and Hilltop’s Section D 

questionnaire response dated July 14, 2011, at 5. 

cases where the identical merchandise 

is not produced, the team must 

determine if other merchandise that is 

comparable is produced. How the team 

does this depends on the subject 

merchandise.’’ 53 In this regard, the 

Department recognizes that any analysis 

of comparable merchandise must be 

done on a case-by-case basis: 

In other cases, however, where there are 

major inputs, i.e., inputs that are specialized 

or dedicated or used intensively, in the 

production of the subject merchandise, e.g., 

processed agricultural, aquatic and mineral 

products, comparable merchandise should be 

identified narrowly, on the basis of a 

comparison of the major inputs, including 

energy, where appropriate.54

Further, the statute grants the 

Department discretion to examine 

various data sources for determining the 

best available information.55 Moreover, 

while the legislative history provides 

that the term ‘‘significant producer’’ 

includes any country that is a 

significant ‘‘net exporter,’’ 56 it does not 

preclude reliance on additional or 

alternative metrics. In this case, we 

examined both production data 

published by the United Nations Food 

and Agriculture Organization, Fisheries 

and Aquaculture Information and 

Statistics Service (‘‘UNFAO’’), and 

export data published by the Global 

Trade Atlas (‘‘GTA’’) to determine 

which countries included on the 

Surrogate Country List were producers 

of identical and comparable 

merchandise. Production data for 2009, 

the most recently available year, 

indicates that all countries on the 

Surrogate Country List had production 

of identical merchandise, with the 

exception of Ukraine. We note that the 

‘‘Natantian Decapods, nei’’ produced in 

Ukraine, and referenced in the 

production data, is a general class of 

shrimp that includes both subject and 

non-subject merchandise, and, 

therefore, should properly be classified 

comparable merchandise. However, 

Thailand and Indonesia, the largest and 

second largest producing countries, 

respectively, individually produced 

substantially more identical 

merchandise than all other countries 

combined. Further, we note that 

Thailand and Indonesia had substantial 

production of the same species of 

shrimp produced by both respondents 

in the instant review. Similarly, GTA 

export data indicates that all of the 

countries listed on the Surrogate 

Country List had exports of the primary 

HTS numbers included in the scope of 

the Order during the POR, i.e., of HTS 

numbers 0306.13 and 1605.20. 

However, Thailand and Indonesia had 

the largest and second largest export 

volumes, respectively, of the 

aforementioned HTS numbers. 

As noted above, all countries on the 

Surrogate Country List had production 

of identical or comparable merchandise 

and were exporters of HTS numbers 

included in the scope of the Order. 

Since none of the potential surrogate 

countries have been definitively 

disqualified through the above analysis, 

the Department looks to the availability 

of SV data to determine the most 

appropriate surrogate country. 

Data Availability 

When evaluating SV data, the 

Department considers several factors 

including whether the SV is publicly 

available, contemporaneous with the 

POR, represents a broad-market average, 

from an approved surrogate country, 

tax- and duty-exclusive, and specific to 

the input. There is no hierarchy among 

these criteria. It is the Department’s 

practice to carefully consider the 

available evidence in light of the 

particular facts of each industry when 

undertaking its analysis.57 In this case, 

Petitioners and Hilltop placed SV data 

on the record of this review for 

Thailand, including prices for shrimp 

larvae and shrimp feed, and the 

financial statements of three Thai 

processors of subject merchandise.58 We 

note that because both respondents in 

this review have reported that they farm 

their own shrimp,59 shrimp larvae and 

shrimp feed are the primary inputs of 

their production and, thus, the SVs most 

essential to our analysis. 

In addition to the SV data placed on 

the record by interested parties, we 

conducted an extensive search for SVs 

from other countries included on the 

Surrogate Country List. We were able to 

locate additional pricing data for shrimp 

larvae and shrimp feed from Thailand, 

as well as from the Philippines and 

Indonesia. We note that only Thailand, 

the Philippines and Indonesia have 

specific HTS numbers for shrimp feed. 

Further, the Thai shrimp larvae values 

and financial statements on the record 

of this review and those located by the 

Department were of superior quality to 

those that we were able to locate from 

the Philippines and Indonesia. 

Specifically, the shrimp larvae values 

located by the Department from 

Indonesia and the Philippines were 

non-contemporaneous and the financial 

statements were either noncontemporaneous or the company had 

net losses during the POR. Further, a 

search for financial statements, shrimp 

larvae values and shrimp feed values 

from other countries on the surrogate 

country list did not produce any usable 

SVs. While we recognize potential 

issues with the three financial 

statements on the record from Thailand, 

we find the SV data from Thailand, as 

a whole, to be more robust than the 

available data from the Philippines and 

Indonesia. See Surrogate Value Memo. 

Therefore, the Department finds 

Thailand to be a reliable source for 

surrogate values because Thailand is at 

a comparable level of economic 

development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of 

the Act, is a significant producer of 

identical and comparable merchandise, 

and has publicly available and reliable 

data. Given the above facts, the 

Department has selected Thailand as the 

primary surrogate country for this 

review. See Surrogate Value Memo. 

U.S. Price 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the export price 

(‘‘EP’’) for sales to the United States for 

Regal, because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated party was made before the 

date of importation and the use of 

constructed EP was not otherwise 

warranted. We calculated EP based on 

the price to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, 

we deducted from the starting price to 

unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 

freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 

customs duties, domestic brokerage and 

handling and other movement expenses 

incurred. For the services provided by 

an NME vendor or paid for using an 

NME currency, we based the deduction 

of these movement charges on surrogate 

values. See Surrogate Value Memo for 

details regarding the surrogate values for 

movement expenses. The Department 

has not used Regal’s reported market 

economy international freight expenses 

because Regal was unable to provide 

evidence of the purchase price between 

the freight forwarder located in the PRC 

and the market economy carrier. It is the 

Department’s practice to require a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 12807 

60See Wire Decking From the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, 75 FR 32905 (June 10, 2010) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 6. 

61See Petitioners’ SV Submission at Exhibit 1. 

62See Hilltop SV Submission at Exhibit 16. 

63See Hilltop SuppACD at 37, and Hilltop 

Rebuttal Submission at 2 and Exhibits 1A and 1B. 

64See id. 

65See Regal’s supplemental questionnaire dated 

September 6, 2011, at S–14. 

66See Petitioners’ SV Submission at Exhibits 1 

and 12–15. 

67See Hilltop SV Submission at Exhibit 1 and 

Exhibit 4. 

68See Hilltop SV Rebuttal Submission at 2 and 

Exhibit 2. 

69See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results of 

Antidumping Administrative Review, 75 FR 36630 

(June 28, 2010) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 4, and Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value, and Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In 

Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From the 

People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 53079 

(September 8, 2006) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

respondent to establish a link between 

payments to the ME carrier through the 

ME ocean freight carrier’s PRC agent.60

Accordingly, we have applied a SV to 

all of Regal’s ocean freight costs, which 

we deducted in the calculation of U.S. 

net price. For further details, see the 

company specific analysis 

memorandum, dated concurrently with 

the signature date of this notice. 

Constructed Export Price 

For Hilltop’s sales, we based U.S. 

price on constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) in accordance with section 

772(b) of the Act, because sales were 

made on behalf of Hilltop by its U.S. 

affiliates to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. For these sales, we 

based CEP on prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price (gross 

unit price) for foreign movement 

expenses, international movement 

expenses, U.S. movement expenses, and 

appropriate selling expenses, in 

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

the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we also deducted those 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States. We deducted, where 

appropriate, commissions, inventory 

carrying costs, credit expenses, and 

indirect selling expenses. Where foreign 

movement expenses, international 

movement expenses, or U.S. movement 

expenses were provided by PRC service 

providers or paid for in Chinese 

renminbi, we valued these services 

using surrogate values. See Surrogate 

Value Memo for details regarding the 

surrogate values for movement 

expenses. For those expenses that were 

provided by a market-economy provider 

and paid for in market-economy 

currency, we used the reported 

expenses. Due to the proprietary nature 

of certain adjustments to U.S. price, for 

a detailed description of all adjustments 

made to U.S. price for Hilltop and Regal, 

see the company specific analysis 

memoranda, dated concurrently with 

the signature date of this notice. 

Normal Value 

Methodology 

Section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Act 

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOPs because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by the respondents for the 

POR. To calculate NV, we multiplied 

the reported per-unit factorconsumption rates by publicly available 

surrogate values (except as discussed 

below). 

In selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. We added to each Thai 

import surrogate value a surrogate 

freight cost calculated from the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory or the 

distance from the nearest seaport to the 

factory, where appropriate. See Sigma 

Corp. v. United States, 117 F.3d 1401, 

1407–08 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we 

could not obtain publicly available 

information contemporaneous to the 

POR with which to value FOPs, we 

adjusted the surrogate values, where 

appropriate, using the Producer Price 

Index (‘‘PPI’’) as published in the 

International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics. See 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

The Department used Thai import 

statistics from GTA to value the raw 

material and packing material inputs 

that Hilltop and Regal used to produce 

subject merchandise during the POR, 

except where listed below. 

Petitioners provided a SV for shrimp 

larvae derived from a price list for 

various sizes of black tiger prawn larvae 

published in April of 2006 by the 

Thailand Department of Fisheries’ 

National Institute of Coastal 

Aquaculture.61 Hilltop provide a SV for 

white shrimp larvae derived from an 

April 2008 study by the Thai Ministry 

of Natural Resource and Environment, 

Pollution Control Department, titled 

‘‘Aquaculture under the low-salted 

system in fresh water area.’’ 62 In its 

rebuttal submission, Hilltop objected to 

the use of Petitioners’ SV for shrimp 

larvae based on evidence indicating 

higher production costs and larvae 

prices for black tiger prawns as opposed 

to white shrimp, the sole species 

produced by Hilltop.63 To value shrimp 

larvae, the Department is placing on the 

record of this review the March 2010 

publication of Aqua Culture Asia Pacific 

magazine. We find this to be the best 

source on the record because it is 

publicly available, contemporaneous 

with the POR and specific to the input, 

which in this case is white shrimp 

larvae, the sole species produced by 

Hilltop.64 Because Regal operates its 

own hatchery, we are not using a 

surrogate to value Regal’s self-produced 

shrimp larvae.65 Rather, we are valuing 

Regal’s inputs at the hatchery stage. For 

further discussion of this issue, see 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

Petitioners placed GTA-Thailand 

import data on the record of this review 

for the purposes of valuing shrimp 

feed.66 Hilltop provided a SV for shrimp 

feed derived from a 2008 study titled 

‘‘Analysis of Production Costs and 

Logistic Costs of White Shrimp Farming 

in Thailand.’’ 67 In its rebuttal 

submission, Hilltop objected to the use 

of Petitioner’s source for shrimp feed, 

arguing that the high average unit values 

(‘‘AUVs’’) reflected in the import data 

would produce an unreasonable 

result.68

In testing the reliability of SVs alleged 

to be aberrational, or in this case, SVs 

which produce an unreasonable result, 

the Department applies certain criteria 

in making its decision. First, the 

Department’s current practice is to 

compare the surrogate values in 

question to the GTA AUVs calculated 

for the same period using data from the 

other potential surrogate countries on 

the Surrogate Country List, to the extent 

that such data are available.69 In a 

similar vein, we note that the 

Department has also examined data 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12808 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 

70See, e.g., Lightweight Thermal Paper From the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 57329 

(October 2, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10; and 

Saccharin from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

7515 (February 13, 2006) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

71See Tapered Roller Bearings and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3; 

see also Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 

from Romania: Notice of Final Results and Final 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 

2005), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 3. 

72See Antidumping Methodologies in 

Proceedings Involving Non-Market Economies: 

Valuing the Factor of Production: Labor, 76 FR 

36092 (June 21, 2011) (‘‘Labor Methodologies’’). 

This notice followed the Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 604 

F.3d 1363, 1372 (CAFC 2010), found that the 

‘‘{regression-based} method for calculating wage 

rates {as stipulated by 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3)} uses 

data not permitted by {the statutory requirements 

laid out in section 773 of the Act (i.e., 19 U.S.C. 

1677b(c))}.’’ 

from the same HTS category for the 

surrogate country over multiple years to 

determine if the current data appear 

aberrational with respect to historical 

values.70

The Department has analyzed POR 

and historical shrimp feed import data 

for Thailand, the Philippines, and 

Indonesia, for the periods corresponding 

to the 4th, 5th and 6th administrative 

reviews of this case. See Surrogate 

Value Memo. We note that for the 

current POR, the AUV of Thai shrimp 

feed imports was $14.54/kg, while the 

AUVs of the Indonesian and Philippine 

shrimp feed imports were $0.92/kg and 

$0.50/kg, respectively. See id. Further, 

the AUV of Thai shrimp feed imports 

over the periods examined show 

considerably more variance, exhibiting a 

standard deviation of 11.43, than the 

other countries, with standard 

deviations ranging from 0.188 to 0.195. 

See id. While the Department is unable 

to determine the root cause of this 

variance, we do find that it may indicate 

aberrational data. Therefore, as the Thai 

import data for shrimp feed appears to 

be aberrational, based on a comparison 

against imports made during the POR by 

economically comparable countries and 

historical data, the Department has 

looked to other potential sources by 

which to value shrimp feed for these 

preliminary results. 

With respect to Hilltop’s SV source 

for shrimp feed, the only other source 

placed on the record of this review by 

interested parties, we note that it reports 

the cost of shrimp feed over the entire 

farming phase of shrimp production, 

i.e., the cost of shrimp feed required to 

produce one kg of finished product. 

However, Hilltop’s source did not 

provide the quantity of shrimp feed 

used to produce one kg of finished 

product. Therefore, we are unable to 

calculate a per kg cost of shrimp feed 

based on this source, which is necessary 

to value respondents’ consumption. 

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

not use Hilltop’s source as it does not 

allow us to value the respondents’ 

consumption. 

It is the Department’s preference to 

value all FOPs in a single surrogate 

country, when possible, consistent with 

section 351.408(c)(2) of the 

Department’s regulations, which states 

that ‘‘the Secretary normally will value 

all factors in a single surrogate country.’’ 

However, where no suitable SV is 

available from the primary surrogate 

country, the Department has valued 

FOPs in other countries that have been 

found to be significant producers of 

comparable merchandise and 

economically comparable to the NME 

country in question.71 As such, to value 

shrimp feed, the Department is placing 

shrimp feed import data for Indonesia, 

the second largest producer and 

exporter of shrimp, on the record of this 

review because it does not appear to be 

aberrational, it is contemporaneous with 

the POR, it is a broad-market average, it 

is specific to the input and it is tax and 

duty exclusive. For further discussion of 

this issue, see Surrogate Value Memo. 

We valued electricity using the 2010 

prices published by the Electricity 

Generating Authority of Thailand, 

which contains pricing data for 

electricity sales to the Metropolitan 

Electricity Authority of Thailand, the 

Provincial Electricity Authority of 

Thailand, direct customers, minor 

customers and standby power supply 

rates. These electricity rates represent 

publicly available, broad-market 

averages. See Surrogate Value Memo. 

On June 21, 2011, the Department 

announced its new methodology to 

value the cost of labor in NME 

countries.72 In Labor Methodologies, the 

Department determined that the best 

methodology to value the labor input is 

to use industry-specific labor rates from 

the primary surrogate country. 

Additionally, the Department 

determined that the best data source for 

industry-specific labor rates is Chapter 

6A: Labor Cost in Manufacturing, from 

the International Labor Organization 

(‘‘ILO’’) Yearbook of Labor Statistics 

(‘‘Yearbook’’). 

As announced above, the 

Department’s methodology is to use data 

reported under Chapter 6A by the ILO. 

For this review the Department found 

that Thailand last reported data in 2000 

for Chapter 6A under Sub-Classification 

15 of the ISIC–Revision 3, which we 

have adjusted for the POR using the 

relevant consumer price index as 

published by the International Monetary 

Fund’s International Financial Statistics 

under series ‘‘64..ZF Consumer Prices.’’ 

Accordingly, we are relying on Chapter 

6A of the Yearbook, and have calculated 

the labor input using Sub-Classification 

15 ‘‘Manufacture of Food Products and 

Beverages’’ labor data reported by 

Thailand to the ILO, in accordance with 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act. A more 

detailed description of the wage rate 

calculation methodology is provided in 

the Surrogate Value Memo. 

As stated above, the Department used 

Thailand ILO data reported under 

Chapter 6A of the ILO Yearbook, which 

reflects all costs related to labor, 

including wages, benefits, housing, 

training, etc. Pursuant to Labor 

Methodologies, the Department’s 

practice is to consider whether financial 

ratios reflect labor expenses that are 

included in other elements of the 

respondent’s factors of production (e.g., 

general and administrative expenses). 

However, the financial statements used 

to calculate financial ratios in this 

review were insufficiently detailed to 

permit the Department to isolate 

whether any labor expenses were 

included in other components of NV. 

Therefore, in this review, the 

Department made no adjustment to 

these financial statements. See 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

To value the respondents’ 

international ocean freight from the PRC 

to the United States on NME carriers in 

instances where the exporter was 

responsible for these charges, the 

Department is using data obtained from 

the Descartes Carrier Rate Retrieval 

Database (‘‘Descartes’’), which can be 

accessed via http://descartes.com/. The 

Descartes rates are contemporaneous 

with the POR. See Surrogate Value 

Memo. 

To value water, the Department used 

data published by the Metropolitan 

Waterworks Authority of Thailand 

(http://www.mwa.co.th) specific to 

prices charged to Commerce, 

Government Agency, State Enterprise 

and Industry. Although this source 

states that the published prices are 

effective as of December 1999 there is 

no information to indicate that these 

prices are not still in effect. See 

Surrogate Value Memo. 

We valued diesel using data from the 

International Energy Agency publication 

Energy Prices & Taxes, Quarterly 

Statistics (Second Quarter 2011), which 

uses 2010 data that is tax and duty 

exclusive. See Surrogate Value Memo. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 12809 

73See Petitioners’ SV Submission at Attachment 

5. 

74See Hilltop SV Submission at Exhibits 17A and 

17B. 

75See Hilltop SV Submission at Exhibit 17A, 49– 

50 (Board of Investment program and income tax 

exemption that is contingent upon export). 

76See Petitioners’ SV Submission at Attachment 

5, 26–27 (Board of Investment program that is 

contingent upon export). 

77See Final Negative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Bottle-Grade Polyethylene 

Terephthalate (PET) Resin From Thailand, 70 FR 

13462 (March 21, 2005); see also Ball Bearings and 

Parts Thereof From Thailand: Final Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 61 FR 

728 (January 6, 1997). 

78See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, H.R. Rep. No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess., at 

590–91 (1988). 

79See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final Results 

and Rescission, In Part, of 2004/2005 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative and New Shipper Reviews, 72 

FR 19174 (April 17, 2007), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

80See id. 

81See Certain Preserved Mushrooms from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final Results and Final 

Partial Rescission of the Sixth Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 40477 (July 17, 2006), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; see also Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

from the People’s Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 

19546 (April 22, 2002) and accompanying Issues 

and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

82The CIT has upheld its previous determinations 

that ‘‘when Commerce is faced with the decision to 

choose between two reasonable alternatives and one 

alternative is favored over the other in their eyes, 

then they have the discretion to choose 

accordingly.’’ See FMC Corp. v. United States, 27 

CIT 240, 241 (CIT 2003), (citing 

Technoimportexport, UCF America Inc. v. United 

States, 783 F. Supp. 1401, 1406 (CIT 1992)), 

affirmed FMC Corp. v. United States, 87 Fed. Appx. 

753 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

83See Hilltop SV Submission at Exhibit 17B, 10 

(‘‘The principal business of the Company is frozen 

seafood manufacturing’’). 

84See Drill Pipe from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Critical Circumstances, 76 FR 1966 

(January 11, 2011), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

85See Rhodia, Inc. v. United States, 240 F. Supp. 

2d 1247 (CIT 2002). 

86See Bulk Aspirin from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 48337 (August 13, 

2003), and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2. 

To value truck freight expenses, we 

used the World Bank’s Doing Business 

2011: Thailand located at http://www.

doingbusiness.org/, which we find to be 

contemporaneous, specific to the cost of 

shipping goods in Thailand, and 

representative of a broad-market 

average. This report gathers information 

concerning the cost to transport a 20- 

foot container of dry goods weighing 10 

tons from the largest city to the nearest 

seaport. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a price list of export procedures 

necessary to export a standardized cargo 

of goods in Thailand published in the 

World Bank’s Doing Business 2011: 

Thailand. The price list is compiled 

based on a survey case study of the 

procedural requirements for trading a 

standard shipment of goods by ocean 

transport in Thailand. 

To value factory overhead, sales, 

general and administrative expenses 

(‘‘S,G&A’’), and profit, Petitioners 

placed on the record of this review the 

calendar year 2010 financial statements 

of Seafresh Industry Public Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Seafresh’’).73 Hilltop placed on the 

record of this review the calendar year 

2010 financial statements of Thai Union 

Frozen Products Public Co., Ltd. (‘‘Thai 

Union’’), and Kiang Huat Sea Gull 

Trading Frozen Food Public Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Kiang Huat’’).74 The Department has 

reviewed the financial statements 

provided by the parties and determined 

that Thai Union 75 and Seafresh 76

received a countervailable subsidy 

during the POR, from a program 

previously investigated by the 

Department.77

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs 

Commerce to base the valuation of the 

factors of production on ‘‘the best 

available information regarding the 

values of such factors in a market 

economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate * * *’’ 

Moreover, in valuing such factors, 

Congress has directed Commerce to 

‘‘avoid using any prices which it has 

reason to believe or suspect may be 

dumped or subsidized prices.’’ 78

Therefore, where the Department has a 

reason to believe or suspect that the 

company may have received subsidies, 

the Department may find that the 

financial ratios derived from that 

company’s financial statements are less 

representative of the financial 

experience of that company or the 

relevant industry than the ratios derived 

from financial statements that do not 

contain evidence of subsidization.79

Here, the Department finds that the 

statements for companies that received 

countervailable subsidies previously 

investigated by the Department do not 

constitute the best available information 

to value the surrogate financial ratios.80

Therefore, we preliminarily determine 

that the Thai Union and Seafresh 

statements do not constitute the best 

available information on the record. 

In determining the suitability of 

surrogate values, the Department 

carefully considers the available 

evidence with respect to the particular 

facts of each case and evaluates the 

suitability of each source on a case-bycase basis.81 Accordingly, when 

examining the merits of financial 

statements on the record, the 

Department does not have an 

established hierarchy that automatically 

gives certain characteristics more weight 

than others. Rather, the Department 

must weigh available information with 

respect to each situation and make a 

product and case-specific decision as to 

what constitutes the ‘‘best’’ available 

information. Furthermore, the CIT has 

recognized the Department’s discretion 

in selecting the best surrogate values on 

the record.82

With respect to the remaining Kiang 

Huat statement, we recognize that the 

company, which only processes shrimp, 

does not perfectly match the production 

experience of respondents, which farm 

and process shrimp.83 Although the 

Department’s standard criteria for 

selecting financial statements in 

calculating surrogate financial ratios 

also includes examining the level of 

integration of the surrogate company in 

order to approximate the overhead 

costs, S,G&A, and profit levels of the 

respondent,84 the CIT has held that the 

Department is ‘‘neither required to 

duplicate the exact production 

experience of the integrated 

manufacturers, nor undergo an item by 

item analysis in calculating factory 

overhead.’’ 85 Moreover, it has been our 

experience that it is rarely possible to 

achieve exact symmetry between the 

NME producer and the surrogate 

producer.86 Therefore, in this instance, 

we find that the Department’s legislative 

obligation to avoid using values 

potentially distorted by subsidies 

outweighs the difference in levels of 

integration between the surrogate 

company and the respondents. 

Accordingly, for these preliminary 

results we have calculated the surrogate 

financial ratios based on the financial 

statement of Kiang Huat, which we find 

to be the best available information on 

the record because it does not contain 

evidence that the company received a 

countervailable subsidy during the POR 

from a program previously investigated 

by the Department. 

Additionally, we note that the Kiang 

Huat financial statement does not 

identify energy expenses. When the 

Department is unable to segregate and, 

therefore, exclude energy costs from the 

calculation of the surrogate financial 

ratio, it is the Department’s practice to 

disregard the respondents’ energy 

inputs in the calculation of normal 

value in order to avoid double-counting 

energy costs which have necessarily 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
12810 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 

87See Citric Acid and Certain Citrate Salts From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Affirmative 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 74 

FR 16838, 16839 (April 13, 2009), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

88This rate shall also apply to the single entity 

consisting of Hilltop International, Yelin Enterprise 

Co., Ltd., Ocean Beauty Corporation, and Ever Hope 

International Co., Ltd. 

89The PRC-wide entity includes the 81 

companies under review that are referenced above 

in footnote 33, as well as any company that does 

not have a separate rate. 

90See Glycine From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in 

Part, 72 FR 58809 (October 17, 2007) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

been captured in the surrogate financial 

ratios.87 See Surrogate Value Memo. 

Currency 

Where appropriate, we made currency 

conversions into U.S. dollars, in 

accordance with section 773A(a) of the 

Act, based on the exchange rates in 

effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as 

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Verification 

As provided in sections 782(i)(2)–(3) 

of the Act, we intend to verify the 

information upon which we will rely in 

determining our final results of review 

with respect to Hilltop. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period February 1, 

2010, through January 31, 2011: 

Exporter Margin 

(percent) 

Hilltop International 88 ................. 0.00 

Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd .......... 0.00 

PRC–Wide Entity 89 .................... 112.81 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. Interested 

parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the 

publicly available information to value 

each FOP. Additionally, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 

results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual 

information to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information submitted by an 

interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information. However, the Department 

notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits 

new information only insofar as it 

rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record. The 

Department generally cannot accept the 

submission of additional, previously 

absent-from-the-record alternative 

surrogate value information pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.301(c)(1).90 Additionally, 

for each piece of factual information 

submitted with surrogate value rebuttal 

comments, the interested party must 

provide a written explanation of what 

information is already on the record of 

the ongoing proceeding, which the 

factual information is rebutting, 

clarifying, or correcting. 

Because, as noted above, the 

Department intends to verify the 

information upon which we will rely in 

making our final determination, the 

Department will establish the briefing 

schedule at a later time, and will notify 

parties of the schedule in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.309. Parties who 

submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in 

this proceeding are requested to submit 

with each argument: (1) A statement of 

the issue; (2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and (3) a table of authorities. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c) and (d). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, 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. Issues 

raised in the hearing will be limited to 

those raised in the respective case and 

rebuttal briefs. 

Extension of the Time Limits for the 

Final Results 

Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act 

requires that the Department issue the 

final results of an administrative review 

within 120 days after the date on which 

the preliminary results are published. If 

it is not practicable to complete the 

review within that time period, section 

751(a)(3)(A) of the Act allows the 

Department to extend the deadline for 

the final results to a maximum of 180 

days after the date on which the 

preliminary results are published. 

In this proceeding, the Department 

requires additional time to complete the 

final results of this administrative 

review to conduct the verification of 

Hilltop, generate the reports of the 

verification findings, and properly 

consider the issues raised in case briefs 

from interested parties. Thus, it is not 

practicable to complete this 

administrative review within the 

original time limit. Consequently, the 

Department is extending the time limit 

for completion of the final results of this 

review by 60 days, in accordance with 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. The final 

results are now due no later than 180 

days after the publication date of these 

preliminary results. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by these 

reviews. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

for the mandatory respondent, we 

calculated an exporter/importer (or 

customer)-specific assessment rate for 

the merchandise subject to this review. 

Where the respondent has reported 

reliable entered values, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rates by aggregating the 

dumping margins calculated for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

entered value of the sales to each 

importer (or customer). See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). Where an importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rate is 

greater than de minimis, we will apply 

the assessment rate to the entered value 

of the importer’s/customer’s entries 

during the POR. See 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a perunit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 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 calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

For the company for which this 

review has been preliminarily 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Notices 12811 

1We note that there are additional companies for 

which all review requests were withdrawn within 

the 90 day period. See Letter to the Department 

from Petitioners, Re: Withdrawal of Requests for 

Second Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order—Kitchen Appliance Shelving and 

Racks from the People’s Republic of China, dated 

January 10, 2012; and Letter to the Department from 

Petitioners, Re: Withdrawal of Requests for Second 

Administrative Review of the Antidumping Duty 

Order—Kitchen Appliance Shelving and Racks 

from the People’s Republic of China, dated January 

30, 2012. These additional companies for which all 

review requests were withdrawn do not have a 

separate rate from a prior segment of this 

proceeding. We intend to address the disposition of 

these companies in the preliminary results of this 

review. 

rescinded, Shantou Yuexing Enterprise 

Company, the Department intends to 

assess antidumping duties at rates equal 

to the cash deposit of estimated 

antidumping duties required at the time 

of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, 

for consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2), if the review is 

rescinded for this company in the final 

results. 

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 from the PRC 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For Regal, the 

cash deposit rate will be that established 

in the final results of this review, 

except, if the rate is zero or de minimis, 

no cash deposit will be required; (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 112.81 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 nonPRC exporter. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

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 POR. 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 this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 

CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: February 24, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5028 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–941] 

Certain Kitchen Appliance Shelving 

and Racks From the People’s Republic 

of China: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 2, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Marksberry, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington DC 20230; (202) 482–7906. 

Background 

On October 31, 2011, the Department 

of Commerce (‘‘Department’’) published 

a notice of initiation of an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

kitchen appliance shelving and racks 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) covering the period September 

1, 2010, through August 31, 2011. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 76 FR 67133 (October 31, 2011). 

On January 10, 2012, SSW Holding 

Company, Inc. and Nashville Wire 

Products, Inc, (‘‘Petitioners’’) withdrew 

their request for an administrative 

review of Hangzhou Dunli Import & 

Export Co.; Ltd. (‘‘Hangzhou Dunli’’). 

Additionally, on January 30, 2012, 

Petitioners withdrew their request for a 

review of Guangdong Wireking Co. Ltd. 

(‘‘Wireking’’). Petitioners were the only 

party to request a review of these 

companies. 

Partial Rescission 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

who requested the review withdraws 

the request within 90 days of the date 

of publication of notice of initiation of 

the requested review. Petitioners’ 

request was submitted within the 90 day 

period and, thus, is timely. Because 

Petitioners’ withdrawal of requests for 

review is timely and because no other 

party requested a review of the 

aforementioned companies, in 

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

we are partially rescinding this review 

with respect to Hangzhou Dunli and 

Wireking.1

Assessment Rates 

The Department will instruct U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. Both Hangzhou 

Dunli and Wireking have a separate rate 

from a prior segment of this proceeding; 

therefore, antidumping duties shall be 

assessed at rates equal to the cash 

deposit of estimated antidumping duties 

required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department 

intends to issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of this notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a final reminder 

to importers for whom this review is 

being rescinded, as of the publication 

date of this notice, of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(0(2) 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 the antidumping 

duties occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of double antidumping 

duties. 

Notification Regarding Administrative 

Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES