Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13547 

1See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 5152 

(February 1, 2005) (‘‘Order’’). 

2See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, 

Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 76 FR 5559 

(February 1, 2011). 

3The Domestic Producers are the Ad Hoc Shrimp 

Trade Action Committee members: Nancy Edens; 

Papa Rod, Inc.; Carolina Seafoods; Bosarge Boats, 

Inc.; Knight’s Seafood Inc.; Big Grapes, Inc.; 

Versaggi Shrimp Co.; and Craig Wallis. 

4See Initiation of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Requests for Revocation in 

Part, and Deferral of Administrative Review, 76 FR 

17825 (March 31, 2011). 

5See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 76 FR 65178 (October 20, 

2011). 

6See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 77 FR 2958 (January 20, 

2012). 

7See also 19 CFR 351.204(c) regarding 

respondent selection, in general. 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which 

continues to govern business 

proprietary information in this segment 

of the proceeding. Timely written 

notification of the return/destruction of 

APO materials or conversion to judicial 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

These final results of review are 

issued and published in accordance 

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

the Act. 

Dated: February 29, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix 

List of Comments: 

ArcelorMittal Las Truchas, S.A. de C.V. 

(AMLT) 

Comment 1: Treatment of Sales with 

Negative Dumping Margins (Zeroing) 

Comment 2: Application of Partial Adverse 

Facts Available to ArcelorMittal Las 

Truchas, S.A. de C.V.’s Reported Home 

Market Inland Freight Expenses 

[FR Doc. 2012–5575 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–802] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Preliminary Results of 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting the sixth 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’) 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’) for the period of review 

(‘‘POR’’) February 1, 2010, through 

January 31, 2011. As discussed below, 

we preliminarily determine that sales 

have been made below normal value 

(‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

we will instruct U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer-specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 7, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni 

Dach or Seth Isenberg, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–1655 or (202) 482– 

0588, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam.1 On 

February 1, 2011, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice of opportunity to request an 

administrative review of the Order for 

the period February 1, 2010, through 

January 31, 2011.2

From February 25, 2011, through 

February 28, 2011, we received requests 

to conduct administrative reviews from 

the American Shrimp Processors 

Association (‘‘ASPA’’), the Domestic 

Producers,3 and certain Vietnamese 

companies. On March 31, 2011, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register the notice of initiation of this 

administrative review.4

On October 20, 2011, the Department 

published in the Federal Register a 

notice extending the time period for 

issuing the preliminary results by 90 

days.5 On January 20, 2012, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register an additional notice extending 

the time period for issuing the 

preliminary results by 30 days.6

On May 15, 2011, the Department 

received a letter from Quoc Viet 

Seaproducts Processing Trading Import 

and Export Co., Ltd. (‘‘Quoc Viet’’) 

indicating that it made no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR. 

On May 31, 2011, the Department 

received similar letters from Nam Hai 

Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd. 

(‘‘Nam Hai’’) and Vinh Loi Import 

Export Company (‘‘Vinh Loi’’). Of the 68 

companies/groups upon which we 

initiated an administrative review, 24 

companies submitted separate-rate 

certifications, 10 companies submitted 

separate-rate applications, and three 

companies stated that they did not 

export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. 

Respondent Selection 

Section 777A(c)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘the Act’’), directs 

the Department to calculate individual 

dumping margins for each known 

exporter or producer of the subject 

merchandise.7 However, section 

777A(c)(2) of the Act gives the 

Department the discretion to limit its 

examination to a reasonable number of 

exporters or producers if it is not 

practicable to examine all exporters or 

producers involved in an administrative 

review. 

On April 19, 2011, the Department 

released CBP data for entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR under 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

to all interested parties having an APO 

as of the date of this release, and invited 

comments regarding the CBP data and 

respondent selection. On April 29, 2011, 

the Department received comments 

from the ASPA, the Domestic Producers, 

and certain Vietnamese respondents 

regarding respondent selection for this 

review. No other interested parties 

submitted comments for respondent 

selection and no interested parties 

rebutted these respondent selection 

comments. 

On June 17, 2011, the Department 

issued the respondent selection 

memorandum, in which it explained 

that, because of the large numbers of 

exporters or producers involved in the 

review, it would not be practicable to 

individually examine all companies. 

Rather, the Department determined that 

it could only reasonably examine two 

exporters in this review. Pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the 

Department selected Minh Phu Seafood 

Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui 

Seafood Co., Ltd., and Minh Phat 

Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively ‘‘the 

Minh Phu Group’’), and Nha Trang 

Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13548 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

8See Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 9, from Toni Dach, 

International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office 9; 

6th Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Selection of Respondents for Individual 

Review, dated June 17, 2011. 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

10On 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 23227 (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. 

11See, e.g., Fourth Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results, 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Intent Not To Revoke, 

In Part, 75 FR 11855, 11856–57 (March 12, 2010) 

(unchanged in final results). 

12On June 13, 2011, the Department held 

consultations with counsel for Thong Thuan, in 

which they indicated that Thong Thuan wished to 

pursue the New Shipper Review, despite Thong 

Thuan’s request for an Administrative Review. 

13See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 

77 FR 1053 (January 9, 2012). 

Seafoods’’).8 The Department issued the 

non-market economy (‘‘NME’’) 

antidumping questionnaire to the Minh 

Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods on 

June 20, 2011. Responses from both 

companies were received in July and 

August, 2011. The Department issued 

supplemental questionnaires in 

November, 2011 and responses were 

received in December, 2011. 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 1, 2010, through 

January 31, 2011. 

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,9

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 (‘‘HTSUS’’), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild-caught 

warmwater species include, but are not 

limited to, whiteleg shrimp (Penaeus 

vannemei), banana prawn (Penaeus 

merguiensis), fleshy prawn (Penaeus 

chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of 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 1605.20.10.20); (2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; (3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell-on or peeled (HTS 

subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); (4) shrimp and prawns 

in prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); (7) certain dusted 

shrimp; 10 and (8) 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 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 

HTSUS subheadings: 0306.13.00.03, 

0306.13.00.06, 0306.13.00.09, 

0306.13.00.12, 0306.13.00.15, 

0306.13.00.18, 0306.13.00.21, 

0306.13.00.24, 0306.13.00.27, 

0306.13.00.40, 1605.20.10.10 and 

1605.20.10.30. These HTSUS 

subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

the order is dispositive. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review 

Between May 15 and May 31, 2011, 

Quoc Viet, Nam Hai and Vinh Loi filed 

no shipment certifications indicating 

that they did not export subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. In order to examine these 

claims, we sent an inquiry to CBP 

requesting that any CBP office that had 

any information contrary to the no 

shipments claims, to alert the 

Department. We have received no such 

response from CBP. 

Therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3), we preliminarily 

determine that the above-referenced 

companies made no shipments of 

subject merchandise during the POR, 

and we are preliminarily rescinding the 

review with respect to them.11

Additionally, we note that Thong 

Thuan Company Limited (‘‘Thong 

Thuan’’) is currently under review in 

the 2010–2011 new shipper review of 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Vietnam.12 All entries made by Thong 

Thuan during the POR are under review 

in that segment.13 Therefore, the 

Department is preliminarily rescinding 

this administrative review with respect 

to Thong Thuan, as it has no additional 

entries to be reviewed in this segment. 

Withdrawal of Request for 

Administrative Review 

On May 20, 2011, the Domestic 

Producers withdrew their request for 

review of Bim Seafood Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Bim Seafood’’). Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department 

will rescind an administrative review, 

in whole or in part, if the party that 

requested the review withdraws its 

request within 90 days of the date of 

publication of the notice of initiation of 

the requested review. Therefore, as the 

withdrawal of the request for review of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13549 

14See Hontex Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 

248 F. Supp. 2d 1323, 1342 (CIT 2003) (noting that 

the application of collapsing in the NME context 

may differ from the standard factors listed in the 

regulation). 

15See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From the People’s 

Republic of China, 66 FR 22183 (May 3, 2001); 

Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair 

Value: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From the People’s Republic of China, 66 

FR 49632 (September 28, 2001); and Anshan Iron 

& Steel Co., Ltd. v. United States, 27 C.I.T. 1234, 

1246–47 (CIT 2003). 

16See ‘‘Separate Rates’’ section below for further 

discussion. 

17See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Operations, through James 

Doyle, Director, Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, from 

Toni Dach, Senior International Trade Analyst, 

Office 9, AD/CVD Operations, Regarding 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Whether to Collapse 

Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Co., Ltd. and the 

Minh Phu Group, dated February 28, 2012 

(‘‘Collapsing Memo’’). 

18Although 19 CFR 351.408(b) instructs the 

Department to rely on gross domestic product 

(‘‘GDP’’) data in such comparisons, it is 

Departmental practice to use ‘‘per capita GNI, rather 

than per capita GDP, because while the two 

measures are very similar, per capita GNI is 

reported across almost all countries by an 

authoritative source (the World Bank), and because 

the Department finds that the per capita GNI 

represents the single best measure of a country’s 

level of total income and thus level of economic 

development.’’ See Antidumping Methodologies: 

Market Economy Inputs, Expected Non-Market 

Economy Wages, Duty Drawback; and Request for 

Comments, 71 FR 61716 (October 19, 2006). 

19See Memorandum from Carole Showers, 

Director, Office of Policy, to Scot T. Fullerton, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Request for a List of Surrogate Countries for an 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam, dated July 20, 2011 (‘‘Surrogate Country 

List’’). 

Bim Seafood was timely, we are 

preliminarily rescinding this review 

with respect to Bim Seafood. 

Collapsing 

As indicated above, the Department 

selected the Minh Phu Group as one of 

the mandatory respondents in this 

review. In responding to the 

Department’s antidumping 

questionnaire, the Minh Phu Group 

requested that the Department collapse 

an affiliated producer, Minh Phu Hau 

Giang Seafood Co., Ltd. (‘‘Hau Giang’’), 

with the Minh Phu Group. The Minh 

Phu Group based its request to collapse 

Hau Giang with itself primarily on the 

fact that the Minh Phu Group is a 

significant shareholder in Hau Giang 

and Hau Giang is controlled by the 

Minh Phu Group through shared 

management. 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.401(f), the 

Department will collapse producers and 

treat them as a single entity where: (1) 

Those producers are affiliated, (2) the 

producers have production facilities for 

producing similar or identical products 

that would not require substantial 

retooling of either facility in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities, 

and (3) there is a significant potential 

for manipulation of price or production. 

To the extent that this provision does 

not conflict with the Department’s 

application of separate rates and 

enforcement of the non-market economy 

(‘‘NME’’) provision, section 773(c) of the 

Act, the Department will collapse two or 

more affiliated entities in a case 

involving an NME country if the facts of 

the case warrant such treatment. 

Furthermore, we note the factors listed 

in 19 CFR 351.401(f)(2) are not 

exhaustive, and in the context of an 

NME investigation or administrative 

review, other factors unique to the 

relationship of business entities within 

the NME country may lead the 

Department to determine that collapsing 

is either warranted or unwarranted, 

depending on the facts of the case.14

In summary, if there is evidence of 

significant potential for manipulation 

between or among affiliates which 

produce and/or export similar or 

identical merchandise, whether or not 

all such merchandise is exported to the 

United States, the Department may find 

such evidence sufficient to apply the 

collapsing criteria in an NME context in 

order to determine whether all or some 

of those affiliates should be treated as 

one entity.15

The decision of whether to collapse 

two or more affiliated companies is 

specific to the facts presented in the 

proceeding and is based on several 

considerations, including the structure 

of the collapsed entity, the level of 

control between and among affiliates, 

and the level of participation by each 

affiliate in the proceeding. Given the 

unique relationships which arise in 

NMEs between individual companies 

and the government, the same separate 

rate will be assigned to each individual 

company that is part of the collapsed 

entity only if the facts, taken as a whole, 

support such a finding.16

Based on the reasons explained in the 

Collapsing Memo, and pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.401(f), we have preliminarily 

collapsed Hau Giang and the Minh Phu 

Group.17 All subsequent references in 

this notice to the Minh Phu Group will 

be to the collapsed entity that includes 

the Minh Phu Group and Hau Giang. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value 

Data 

On July 20, 2011, the Department sent 

interested parties a letter inviting 

comments on surrogate country 

selection and information regarding 

valuing factors of production (‘‘FOPs’’). 

On September 12, 2011, the ASPA, the 

Domestic Producers, and certain 

Vietnamese respondents filed comments 

on surrogate country selection, stating 

India, the Philippines, and Bangladesh 

may be appropriate surrogates if their 

data are publicly available, reliable and 

contemporaneous. On December 12, 

2011, the Department received 

information to value FOPs from the 

ASPA, the Domestic Producers, and 

certain Vietnamese respondents. The 

ASPA provided certain surrogate values 

from sources in India, the Domestic 

Producers provided surrogate values 

from sources in the Philippines, and the 

Vietnamese respondents provided 

surrogate values from sources in 

Bangladesh and Indonesia. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country and 

available information does not permit 

the Department to determine NV 

pursuant to section 773(a) of the Act, 

then, pursuant to sections 773(c)(1) and 

773(c)(4) of the Act, the Department 

bases NV on an NME producer’s FOPs, 

to the extent possible, in one or more 

market-economy countries that (1) are at 

a level of economic development 

comparable to that of the NME country, 

and (2) are significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. Regarding the 

‘‘level of economic development,’’ the 

Department relied on per capita gross 

national income (‘‘GNI’’) data to 

measure economic comparability.18

Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(2), the Department will 

normally value FOPs in a single 

country. The sources of the surrogate 

factor values are discussed under the 

‘‘Normal Value’’ section below and in 

the Memorandum to the File through 

Scot Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 

9 from Toni Dach, Senior International 

Trade Analyst, Office 9: Sixth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the 

Preliminary Results, dated February 28, 

2012 (‘‘Surrogate Value Memorandum’’). 

Pursuant to its practice, the 

Department received a list of potential 

surrogate countries from Import 

Administration’s Office of Policy 

(‘‘OP’’).19 The OP determined that 

Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Indonesia, 

Nicaragua, and the Philippines were at 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13550 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

20 Id. 

21 Id. 

22See September 12, 2011, submissions from the 

ASPA, Domestic Producers, and Certain Vietnamese 

Respondents. 

23See Fresh Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Eleventh Administrative Review and New Shipper 

Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 2007) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2A. 

24 Id. 

25See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and 

Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 74 FR 47191 (September 15, 

2009) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

26See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

27See Memorandum to the File through Scot 

Fullerton, Program Manager, Office 9, from Toni 

Dach, Senior International Trade Analyst, and Seth 

Isenberg, International Trade Analyst, ‘‘Verification 

of the Sales and Factors of Production Response 

Nha Trang Seaproduct Group in the 2010–11 

Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,’’ 

dated February 28, 2012. 

28See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 

Results, Partial Rescission and Request for 

Revocation, in Part, of the Fourth Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 12206 (March 15, 2010) (unchanged 

in final results). 

a comparable level of economic 

development to Vietnam.20 The 

Department considers the six countries 

identified by the OP in its Surrogate 

Country List as ‘‘equally comparable in 

terms of economic development.’’ 21

Thus, we find Bangladesh, Ghana, India, 

Indonesia, Nicaragua, and the 

Philippines are all at an economic level 

of development equally comparable to 

that of Vietnam. We note that the 

Surrogate Country List is a nonexhaustive list of economically 

comparable countries. We also note that 

the record does not contain publicly 

available SV factor information for 

Ghana, Nicaragua, or Indonesia. Parties 

submitted information demonstrating 

that Bangladesh, India, and the 

Philippines are significant producers of 

subject merchandise.22 Thus, we find 

that Bangladesh, India, and the 

Philippines are economically 

comparable to Vietnam and significant 

producers of the subject merchandise. 

Once we have identified the countries 

that are economically comparable to 

Vietnam and are significant producers 

of the subject merchandise, we select an 

appropriate surrogate country by 

determining whether the data for 

valuing FOPs are both available and 

reliable. 

Regarding the Bangladeshi data, the 

record contains publicly available 

surrogate factor value information for 

most FOPs. With respect to the main 

raw material input, shrimp, the 

Vietnamese respondents provided data 

for Bangladesh from a study conducted 

by the Network of Aquaculture Centres 

in Asia-Pacific (‘‘NACA’’), an 

intergovernmental organization 

affiliated with the United Nation’s 

(‘‘UN’’) Food and Agricultural 

Organization (‘‘FAO’’). 

With respect to India, the record 

contains publicly available surrogate 

value information for some FOPs. 

Although the ASPA noted in its 

December 12, 2011, surrogate value 

submission that it would place publicly 

available information from India to 

value shrimp on the record, no 

information from India to value shrimp 

has been placed on the record. 

With regard to the Philippines, the 

record contains publicly available 

surrogate factor value information for all 

FOPs. Domestic Producers provided 

shrimp data for the Philippines 

published by the Philippines Fisheries 

Development Authority (‘‘PFDA’’) at 

Navotas City Fish Port. 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting the best available information 

for valuing FOPs, in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act, is to select, 

to the extent practicable, SVs which are 

product-specific, representative of a 

broad-market average, publicly 

available, contemporaneous with the 

POR and exclusive of taxes and duties.23

As a general matter, the Department 

prefers to use publicly available data 

representing a broad-market average to 

value SVs.24 The Department notes that 

the value of the main input, head-on, 

shell-on shrimp, is a critical FOP in the 

dumping calculation as it accounts for 

a significant percentage of NV. 

Moreover, the ability to value shrimp on 

a count-size basis is a significant 

consideration with respect to the data 

available on the record, as the subject 

merchandise and the raw shrimp input 

are both sold on a count-size specific 

basis. For these reasons, in prior 

administrative reviews, the Department 

rejected shrimp SVs with limited count 

sizes.25

The Bangladeshi shrimp values 

within the NACA study are compiled by 

the UN’s FAO from actual pricing 

records kept by Bangladeshi farmers, 

traders, depots, agents, and 

processors.26 The Bangladeshi shrimp 

values within the NACA study are 

publicly available, represent a broadmarket average, are product-specific, 

count-size-specific, contemporaneous 

and represent actual transaction prices. 

Unlike the Bangladeshi data within the 

NACA study, the Philippine shrimp 

data is limited and does not satisfy as 

many factors of the Department’s data 

selection criteria. Specifically, we note 

that the PFDA data contains limited 

count-size specific data, omitting 

substantial portions of the range of sizes 

of shrimp sold by the respondents. 

Therefore, with respect to the data 

considerations, we find that the record 

contains shrimp values for Bangladesh 

that better meet our selection criteria 

than the Philippine source. Moreover, 

there is no shrimp value information 

from India on the record of this review. 

Accordingly, as shrimp is the main 

factor of production in this case, we 

have selected Bangladesh as the primary 

surrogate country as the shrimp 

surrogate value for Bangladesh is the 

most specific to the input consumed. 

In this regard, given the above-cited 

facts, we find that the information on 

the record shows that Bangladesh is an 

appropriate surrogate country because 

Bangladesh is at a similar level of 

economic development pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and has reliable, publicly 

available data for surrogate valuation 

purposes, particularly for the main 

factor of production, i.e., shrimp. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

an antidumping administrative review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Verification 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), 

between January 16 and January 20, 

2012, the Department conducted a 

verification of Nha Trang Seafoods’ 

sales and FOPs.27

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam 

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 None of the 

parties to this proceeding have 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated the NV in accordance 

with section 773(c) of the Act, which 

applies to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

In NME countries, the Department 

begins with a rebuttable presumption 

that all companies within the country 

are subject to government control and 

thus should be assessed a single 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13551 

29See Separate Rates and Combination Rates in 

Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market 

Economy Countries, 70 FR 17233, 17233 (April 5, 

2005) (‘‘Policy Bulletin 05.1’’), also available at: 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/policy/index.html; see also 

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, 53082 

(September 8, 2006); and 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, 29307 (May 22, 2006). 

30See Policy Bulletin 05.1. 

31See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588, 20589 (May 6, 

1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’); see also Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 FR 22585, 22586–87 (May 2, 1994) 

(‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 

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 Appendix 1. 

34See Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 35See Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; see 

also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol From the 

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

antidumping duty rate.29 However, a 

company in the NME applying for 

separate rate status may rebut that 

presumption by demonstrating an 

absence of both de jure and de facto 

government control over its export 

activities.30

The Department analyzes each 

entity’s export independence under a 

test first articulated in Sparklers and as 

further developed in Silicon Carbide.31

Importantly, if the Department 

determines that a company is wholly 

foreign-owned or located in a market 

economy (‘‘ME’’) country, then the 

Department need not conduct a separate 

rate analysis to determine whether the 

company is independent from 

government control.32

In addition to the two mandatory 

respondents, the Minh Phu Group and 

Nha Trang Seafoods, the Department 

received separate rate applications or 

certifications from the following thirtyone companies (‘‘Separate-Rate 

Applicants’’): 

1. Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited 

2. Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company 

3. C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corporation 

4. Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock 

Corporation, aka Cafatex Corp. 

5. Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export 

and Processing Joint Stock 

Company, aka CADOVIMEX– 

VIETNAM 

6. Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock 

Company, aka Seaprimexco 

Vietnam 

7. Camau Frozen Seafood Processing 

Import Export Corp. 

8. Camranh Seafoods and Branch of 

Cam Ranh 

9. Can Tho Import Export Fishery 

Limited Company, aka CAFISH 

10. CATACO Sole Member Limited 

Liability Company, aka CATACO 

11. Coastal Fisheries Development 

Corporation, aka COFIDEX 

12. Cuulong Seaproducts Company, aka 

Cuulong Seapro 

13. Danang Seaproducts Import Export 

Corporation, aka Seaprodex Danang 

and its branch Tho Quang Seafood 

Processing and Export Company 

14. Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. 

15. Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co. Ltd. 

16. Investment Commerce Fisheries 

Corporation, aka INCOMFISH 

17. Kim Anh Company, Limited 

18. Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood 

Processing Joint Stock Company, 

aka Minh Hai Jostoco 

19. Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods 

Processing Company, aka 

Seaprodex Minh Hai 

20. Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise and its 

branch, Ngoc Sinh Seafoods 

Processing and Trading Enterprise, 

aka Ngoc Sinh Seafoods 

21. Ngoc Tri Seafood Joint Stock 

Company 

22. Nhat Dhuc Co., Ltd. 

23. Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company, aka Nha Trang Fisco 

24. Phu Cuong Jostoco Seafood 

Corporation 

25. Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp., aka 

Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. 

26. Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company, 

aka FIMEX VN 

27. Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock 

Company, aka STAPIMEX 

28. Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading 

Corporation 

29. UTXI Aquatic Products Corporation, 

aka UTXICO 

30. Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation, 

aka VINA Cleanfood 

31. Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd., a/k/a 

Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. 

The status of the Separate-Rate 

Applicants is discussed below. 

Thirty companies did not submit 

either a separate-rate application or 

certification.33 Therefore, because these 

companies did not demonstrate their 

eligibility for separate rate status, they 

remain preliminarily included as part of 

the Vietnam-wide entity. 

a. Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) An absence 

of restrictive stipulations associated 

with an individual exporter’s business 

and export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies.34

The evidence provided by the Minh Phu 

Group, Nha Trang Seafoods, and the 

Separate-Rate Applicants supports a 

preliminary finding of de jure absence 

of government control based on the 

following: (1) An absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) there are applicable 

legislative enactments decentralizing 

control of the companies; and (3) there 

are formal measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

See, e.g., the Minh Phu Group’s AQR at 

Exhibit 1, Nha Trang Seafoods Group’s 

AQR at Exhibit A–1. 

b. Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

four factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) Whether the export prices 

are set by or are subject to the approval 

of a government agency; (2) whether the 

respondent has authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) 

whether the respondent retains the 

proceeds of its export sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses.35 The Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of government control which 

would preclude the Department from 

assigning separate rates. The evidence 

provided by the Minh Phu Group, Nha 

Trang Seafoods, and the Separate-Rate 

Applicants supports a preliminary 

finding of de facto absence of 

government control based on the 

following: (1) The companies set their 

own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) the 

companies have authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) the companies have 

autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; and (4) there 

is no restriction on any of the 

companies’ use of export revenue. See, 

e.g., the Minh Phu Group’s AQR at 3– 

26 and Exhibit A–1, Nha Trang Seafoods 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13552 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

36See, e.g., Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative Review, 73 FR 

8273 (February 13, 2008) (unchanged in final 

results). 

37See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final 

Results and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

64307 (October 18, 2011) (‘‘Fifth Review Amended 

Final’’) and Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 75 FR 61122 (October 4, 2010). 

38See Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd v. United 

States, 774 F.Supp.2d 1286 (CIT 2011); Amanda 

Foods (Vietnam) Ltd v. United States, 807 

F.Supp.2d 1332 (CIT 2011). 

39See Fifth Review Amended Final. 

40See 19 CFR 351.107(d). 

41See Notice of Final Antidumping Duty 

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

68 FR 37116 (June 23, 2003). 

42See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 2004), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 10. 

Group’s AQR at 3–16 and Exhibit A–1. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that the Minh Phu Group, Nha 

Trang Seafoods, and the Separate-Rate 

Applicants have established that they 

qualify for a separate rate under the 

criteria established by Silicon Carbide 

and Sparklers. 

Separate Rate Calculation 

In the ‘‘Respondent Selection’’ section 

above, we stated that the Department 

employed a limited examination 

methodology, as it did not have the 

resources to examine all companies for 

which a review request was made, and 

selected two exporters as mandatory 

respondents in this review. The Minh 

Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods 

participated in the review as mandatory 

respondents. Thirty-three additional 

companies (listed in the ‘‘Separate 

Rates’’ section above) submitted timely 

information as requested by the 

Department and remained subject to 

review as separate rate respondents. 

We note that the statute and the 

Department’s regulations do not directly 

address the establishment of a rate to be 

applied to individual companies not 

selected for examination where the 

Department limited its examination in 

an administrative review pursuant to 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The 

Department’s practice in cases involving 

limited selection based on exporters 

accounting for the largest volumes of 

trade has been to look for guidance in 

section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 

provides instructions for calculating the 

all-others rate in an investigation. 

Consequently, the Department generally 

weight-averages the rates calculated for 

the mandatory respondents, excluding 

zero and de minimis rates and rates 

based entirely on facts available (‘‘FA’’), 

and applies that resulting weightedaverage margin to non-selected 

cooperative separate-rate respondents.36

However, the Department has, for 

these preliminary results, calculated a 

zero or de minimis dumping margin for 

the two mandatory respondents, the 

Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang 

Seafoods. In this circumstance, we again 

look to section 735(c)(5) of the Act for 

guidance. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the 

Act instructs that we are not to calculate 

an all-others rate using any zero or de 

minimis margins or any margins based 

entirely on FA. Section 735(c)(5)(B) of 

the Act also provides that, where all 

margins are zero rates, de minimis rates, 

or rates based entirely on FA, we may 

use ‘‘any reasonable method’’ for 

assigning the rate to non-selected 

respondents. Therefore, because all rates 

in this proceeding are de minimis, we 

must look to other reasonable means to 

assign separate rate margins to nonreviewed companies eligible for a 

separate rate in this review. Given that 

the Department has calculated positive 

rates for mandatory respondents in the 

immediately preceding two 

administrative reviews,37 distinguishing 

this review from the second and third 

reviews,38 we find that a reasonable 

method is to assign to non-reviewed 

companies in this review the most 

recent calculated rate from a prior 

completed segment of the proceeding 

that is not zero or de minimis, and not 

based entirely on facts available (or 

average of such rates), or, if any nonselected company has its own 

calculated (non-adverse facts available) 

rate that is contemporaneous with or 

more recent than this rate, then the 

company will receive that rate. Pursuant 

to this method, we are assigning the rate 

of 1.03 percent, the most recent positive 

rate (from the amended final results of 

the fifth administrative review) 

calculated for cooperative separate rate 

respondents, to those separate rate 

respondents in the instant review.39

However, for Camimex, who received a 

calculated rate in the fifth 

administrative review, we are assigning 

that calculated rate as the company’s 

separate rate in this review. Therefore, 

for Camimex, we are assigning its most 

recently calculated rate (0.80 percent) as 

its separate rate in the instant review 

because this rate is contemporaneous 

with the separate rate calculated in the 

fifth administrative review and is based 

on the company’s own data. We invite 

parties to provide comments on this 

methodology in their case briefs. 

Vietnam-Wide Entity 

Upon initiation of the administrative 

review, we provided the opportunity for 

all companies upon which the review 

was initiated to complete either the 

separate-rates application or 

certification. The separate-rate 

certification and separate-rate 

applications were available at: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html. 

We have preliminarily determined 

that 30 companies did not demonstrate 

their eligibility for a separate rate and 

are properly considered part of the 

Vietnam-wide entity. In NME 

proceedings, ‘‘‘rates’ may consist of a 

single dumping margin applicable to all 

exporters and producers.’’ 40 As 

explained above in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’ 

section, all companies within Vietnam 

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 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.41 In this regard, we note that 

no party has submitted evidence of the 

proceeding to demonstrate that such 

government influence is no longer 

present or that our treatment of the NME 

entity is otherwise incorrect. Therefore, 

we are assigning the entity a rate of 

25.76%, the only rate ever determined 

for the Vietnam-wide entity in this 

proceeding. 

Date of Sale 

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(i) 

and the Department’s long-standing 

practice of determining the date of 

sale,42 the Department preliminarily 

determines that the invoice date is the 

most appropriate date to use as the 

Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang 

Seafoods date of sale. The Minh Phu 

Group and Nha Trang Seafoods reported 

the invoice date as the date of sale 

because they claim that, for their U.S. 

sales of subject merchandise made 

during the POR, the material terms of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13553 

43See Surrogate Value Memorandum for details 

regarding the SVs for movement expenses. 

44See Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 

1988, Conf. Report to Accompany H.R. 3, H.R. Rep. 

No. 576, 100th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1988) at 590. 

45See, e.g., Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India: Final Results of the Expedited Five-year 

(Sunset) Review of the Countervailing Duty Order, 

75 FR 13257 (March 19, 2010) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 4–5; Certain 

Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from 

Indonesia: Final Results of Expedited Sunset 

Review, 70 FR 45692 (August 8, 2005) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

4; See Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat 

Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Results 

of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 74 

FR 2512 (January 15, 2009) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 17, 19–20; See 

Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination: Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products From Thailand, 66 FR 50410 (October 3, 

2001) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at 23. 

46See, e.g., Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, 

Sheet, and Strip from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, 73 FR 24552, 24559 (May 5, 2008) 

(unchanged in final determination). 

47See Factor Valuations section, below. 

sale were established based on the 

invoice date. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of shrimp 

to the United States by the Minh Phu 

Group and Nha Trang Seafoods were 

made at less than NV, the Department 

compared either export price (‘‘EP’’) or 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) to NV, 

as described in the ‘‘U.S. Price’’ and 

‘‘Normal Value’’ sections below. 

U.S. Price 

Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, the Department calculated EP 

for sales to the United States for Nha 

Trang Seafoods and a portion of sales to 

the United States for the Minh Phu 

Group because the first sale to an 

unaffiliated party was made before the 

date of importation and the use of CEP 

was not otherwise warranted. The 

Department calculated EP based on the 

sales price to unaffiliated purchasers in 

the United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act, as 

appropriate, the Department deducted 

from the sales price certain foreign 

inland freight, brokerage and handling 

(‘‘B&H’’), and international movement 

costs. Because the inland freight and 

B&H services were either provided by a 

NME vendor or paid for using a NME 

currency, the Department based the 

deduction of these charges on surrogate 

values.43 For international freight 

provided by a ME provider and paid in 

U.S. dollars, the Department used the 

actual cost per kilogram (‘‘kg’’) of the 

freight. 

Constructed Export Price 

For some of the Minh Phu Group’s 

sales, the Department based U.S. price 

on CEP in accordance with section 

772(b) of the Act, because sales were 

made on behalf of the Vietnam-based 

company by a U.S. affiliate to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. For these sales, the Department 

based CEP on prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, the 

Department made deductions from the 

starting price (gross unit price) for 

foreign movement expenses, 

international movement expenses, U.S. 

movement expenses, and appropriate 

selling adjustments, in accordance with 

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

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, the Department also 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States. The 

Department deducted, where 

appropriate, commissions, inventory 

carrying costs, interest revenue, credit 

expenses, warranty expenses, and 

indirect selling expenses. Where foreign 

movement expenses, international 

movement expenses, or U.S. movement 

expenses were provided by NME service 

providers or paid for in an NME 

currency, the Department valued these 

services using SVs (see ‘‘Factor 

Valuations’’ section below for further 

discussion). For those expenses that 

were provided by an ME provider and 

paid for in an ME currency, the 

Department used the reported expense. 

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 each company, see the 

company-specific analysis memoranda, 

dated concurrently with these 

preliminary results. 

Normal Value 

Section 773(c)(1) 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. Further, pursuant to section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, the valuation of an 

NME respondent’s FOPs shall be based 

on the best available information 

regarding the value of such factors in an 

ME country or countries considered to 

be appropriate by the Department. 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. 

The Department used import statistics 

into Bangladesh to value the raw 

material and packing material inputs 

that the Minh Phu Group and Nha Trang 

Seafoods used to produce the subject 

merchandise during the POR, except 

where listed below. 

With respect to the SVs based on 

Bangladeshi import statistics, in 

according with the Omnibus Trade and 

Competitiveness Act of 1988 (‘‘OTCA’’) 

and long-standing agency practice, the 

Department has disregarded prices that 

the Department has reason to believe or 

suspect may be subsidized.44 The 

Department has previously found that it 

is appropriate to disregard such prices 

from Indonesia, South Korea, and 

Thailand because we have determined 

that these countries maintain broadly 

available, non-industry specific, export 

subsidies.45 Based on the existence of 

these subsidy programs that were 

generally available to all exporters and 

producers in these countries at the time 

of the POR, the Department finds that it 

has reason to believe or suspect that all 

exporters from Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand may have benefitted from 

these subsidies and that we should 

therefore disregard any data from these 

countries contained in the Bangladeshi 

import statistics used to calculate SVs. 

The Department similarly disregarded 

prices from NME countries. Imports that 

were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ country were excluded 

from the average value, since the 

Department could not be certain that 

they were not from either an NME 

country or a country with generally 

available export subsidies.46 Finally, the 

Department has excluded some imports 

identified as originating from 

Bangladesh.47 For further discussion 

regarding all SV calculations using 

Bangladeshi Import Statistics, see 

Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c)(1) 

of the Act, for subject merchandise 

produced by the Minh Phu Group and 

Nha Trang Seafoods, the Department 

calculated NV based on the FOPs 

reported by the Minh Phu Group and 

Nha Trang Seafoods for the POR. The 

Department used data from the 

Bangladesh import statistics and other 

publicly available Bangladeshi sources 

in order to calculate SVs for the Minh 

Phu Group and Nha Trang Seafoods’ 

FOPs (direct materials, energy, and 

packing materials) and certain 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13554 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

48See Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Comm. v. 

United States, 618 F.3d 1316, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

49See, e.g., Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide From 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 73 FR 48195 

(August 18, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 2. 

50For a detailed explanation of the Department’s 

valuation of shrimp, see Surrogate Value 

Memorandum at 3. 

51This can be accessed online at: http:// 

www.unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/. 

52See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain 

Color Television Receivers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). 

53See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 

2010) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6. 

54See Grobest & I–Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., 

Ltd., et al. v. United States, Slip Op. 2012–9 

(January 18, 2012) at 20. 

55See Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement 

of Final Determination: Hand Trucks and Certain 

Parts Thereof From the People’s Republic of China, 

69 FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). 

56See Surrogate Value Memorandum. 

57See Surrogate Value Memorandum at 3. 

58 Id. at 4. 

59 Id. at 5. 

60 Id. at 6. 

61 Id. at 4. 

62 Id. at 3. 

63 Id. at 4. 

movement expenses. To calculate NV, 

the Department multiplied the reported 

per-unit factor quantities by publicly 

available Bangladeshi SVs (except as 

noted below). Because the statute is 

silent concerning what constitutes the 

‘‘best available information’’ for a 

particular SV, the courts have 

recognized that on this topic the 

Department enjoys ‘‘broad discretion to 

determine the best available information 

for an antidumping review.’’ 48 The 

Department’s practice when selecting 

the best available information for 

valuing FOPs is to select, to the extent 

practicable, SVs which are productspecific, representative of a broad 

market average, publicly available, 

contemporaneous with the POR, and 

exclusive of taxes and duties.49

Domestic Producers provided shrimp 

data for the Philippines published by 

the PFDA, which, although publicly 

available, does not encompass the full 

range of count sizes sold by 

respondents. Conversely, the shrimp 

values within the NACA study, which 

were submitted by certain Vietnamese 

respondents, are compiled from actual 

pricing records kept by Bangladeshi 

farmers, traders, depots, agents, and 

processors, are count-specific, and 

publicly available. Therefore, to value 

the main input, head-on, shell-on 

shrimp, the Department used data 

contained in the NACA study.50

The Department used United Nations 

ComTrade Statistics, provided by the 

UN Department of Economic and Social 

Affairs’ Statistics Division, as its 

primary source of Bangladeshi SV 

data.51 The data represents cumulative 

values for the calendar year 2007, for 

inputs classified by the Harmonized 

Commodity Description and Coding 

System number. For each input value, 

we used the average value per unit for 

that input imported into Bangladesh 

from all countries that the Department 

has not previously determined to be 

NME countries. Import statistics from 

countries that the Department has 

determined to be countries which 

subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, 

South Korea, Thailand, and India) and 

imports from unspecified countries also 

were excluded in the calculation of the 

average value.52 Lastly, the Department 

has also excluded imports from 

Bangladesh into Bangladesh because 

there is no evidence on the record 

regarding what these data represent 

(e.g., re-importations, another category 

of unspecified imports, or the result of 

an error in reporting). Thus, these data 

do not represent the best available 

information upon which to rely for 

valuation purposes.53

In this case, the Department adjusted 

the SVs as necessary to ensure a fair 

calculation of the production costs.54

First, the Department made adjustments 

to the SVs for exchange rates and taxes, 

and converted all applicable items to 

measurement on a per kg basis. Second, 

the Department adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to render them 

delivered prices. Specifically, to accord 

with the decision of the Federal Circuit 

in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 

F.3d 1401, 1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997), the 

Department added to the Bangladeshi 

import SVs a surrogate freight cost using 

the shorter of the reported distance 

between (1) the domestic supplier and 

the factory or (2) the nearest seaport and 

the factory. Where we did not use 

Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we 

calculated freight based on the reported 

distance from the supplier to the 

factory. For a detailed description of all 

SVs used for the Minh Phu Group and 

Nha Trang Seafoods, see Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price index adjustors to inflate 

or deflate, as appropriate, SVs that are 

not contemporaneous with the POR 

using the wholesale price index (‘‘WPI’’) 

for the subject country.55 However, in 

this case, a WPI was not available for 

Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POR with which to value 

factors could not be obtained, SVs were 

adjusted using the Consumer Price 

Index (‘‘CPI’’) rate for Bangladesh, or the 

WPI for India or Indonesia (for certain 

SVs where Bangladeshi data could not 

be obtained), as published in the 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. We made 

currency conversions, where necessary, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.415, to U.S. 

dollars using the daily exchange rate 

corresponding to the reported date of 

each sale. We relied on the daily 

exchange rates posted on the Import 

Administration Web site (http:// 

www.trade.gov/ia/).56

The Department used UN ComTrade 

to value the raw material and packing 

material inputs that the Minh Phu 

Group and Nha Trang Seafoods used to 

produce the merchandise under review 

during the POR, except where listed 

below. For a detailed description of all 

SVs for respondents, see Surrogate 

Value Memorandum. 

We valued electricity using data from 

the Bangladesh Ministry of Power, 

Energy, & Mineral Resources. This 

information was published on their 

Power Division’s Web site.57

We valued water using 2007 data from 

the Asian Development Bank. We 

inflated the value using the POR average 

CPI rate.58

We valued diesel using data 

published by the World Bank in 

‘‘Bangladesh: Transport at a Glance,’’ 

published in June 2006. We inflated the 

value using the POR average CPI rate.59

To value truck freight and river 

freight, we used data published in 2008 

Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh 

published by the Bangladesh Bureau of 

Statistics. We inflated the value using 

the POR average CPI rate.60

To value marine insurance, the 

Department used rates from RJG 

Consultants. These rates are for sea 

freight from the Far East Region.61

We valued warehouse/cold storage 

rates published in an article on tropicalseeds.com in July 1997. We inflated the 

value using the POR average CPI rate.62

We valued containerization using 

information previously available on the 

Import Administration Web site. We 

inflated the value using the POR average 

WPI rate.63

The Department valued terminal lift 

charges using data from the Web sites 

http://www.oocl.com/bangladesh/eng/

localinformation/localsurcharges/?site=

bangladesh&lang=eng and http://www.

srinternational.com/standard_


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13555 

64 Id. at 5. 

65 Id. at 7. 

66See Surrogate Value Memorandum, at Exhibit 

2. 

67See section 773(c)(4) of the Act. 

68See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

Second Administrative Review, 72 FR 13242 (March 

21, 2007) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 8B. 

69See Surrogate Value Memorandum at XX. 

containers.htm. We inflated the value 

using the POR average WPI rate.64

We valued the by-product using shell 

scrap values from the Memorandum to 

Barbara E. Tillman, Director, Office of 

AD/CVD Enforcement VII, through 

Maureen Flannery, Program Manager, 

Office of AD/CVD Enforcement VII, 

from Christian Hughes and Adina 

Teodorescu, Case Analysts, subject: 

Surrogate Valuation of Shell Scrap: 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China (PRC), 

Administrative Review 9/1/00–8/31/01 

and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00–8/31/ 

01 and 9/1/00–10/15/01. We inflated the 

value using the POR average WPI rate.65

To value factory overhead, selling, 

general, & administrative expenses, and 

profit, we used the simple average of the 

2009–2010 financial statement of Apex 

Foods Limited and the 2009–2010 

financial statement of Gemini Seafood 

Limited, both of which are Bangladeshi 

producers of identical merchandise.66

As previously stated, the Department 

values FOPs in NME cases using the 

best available information for such 

factors in a ME country or countries 

considered appropriate by the 

administering authority. In so doing, the 

Department utilizes, to the extent 

possible, the prices or costs of factors of 

production in one or more ME countries 

that are (1) at a comparable level of 

economic development and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise.67

Previously, to value the respondent’s 

cost of labor, the Department used 

regression-based wages that captured 

the worldwide relationship between per 

capita Gross National Income (‘‘GNI’’) 

and hourly manufacturing wages, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3). 

However, on May 14, 2010, the Federal 

Circuit in Dorbest Ltd. v. United States, 

604 F.3d 1363, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(‘‘Dorbest’’), invalidated 19 CFR 

351.408(c)(3). As a consequence of the 

Federal Circuit’s ruling in Dorbest, the 

Department no longer relies on the 

regression-based wage rate methodology 

described in its regulations. 

In this review, the Department has 

selected Bangladesh as the surrogate 

country for the final results. The record 

contains a labor wage rate for shrimp 

processing in Bangladesh, published by 

the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. 

When selecting possible surrogate 

values for use in an NME proceeding, 

the Department’s preference is to use 

surrogate values that are publicly 

available, broad market averages, 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

specific to the input in question, and 

exclusive of taxes.68 Pursuant to section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, it is also the 

Department’s practice to use the best 

available information to derive surrogate 

values. The Department considers 

several factors, including quality, 

specificity and contemporaneity, to 

determine the best available information 

in accordance with the Act. The 

Department finds this labor wage rate to 

be the best available information on the 

record. This data is publicly available, 

represents a broad market average, 

specific to the shrimp processing 

industry, contemporaneous to the POR, 

and collected from an official 

Bangladeshi government source in the 

surrogate country that the Department 

has selected. Therefore, we note that the 

BBS data is consistent with the 

Department’s statement of policy 

regarding the calculation of surrogate 

value for labor. For further information 

on the calculation of the labor rate, see 

Surrogate Value Memorandum at 4. 

To value brokerage and handling, the 

Department used a price list of export 

procedures necessary to export a 

standardized cargo of goods in India. 

The price list is publicly available and 

compiled based on a survey case study 

of the procedural requirements for 

trading a standard shipment of goods by 

ocean transport in India as published in 

Doing Business 2011: India (published 

by the World Bank).69

Currency Conversion 

The Department 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. 

Preliminary Results of Review 

The Department preliminarily 

determines that the following weightedaverage dumping margins exist: 

Exporter 

Simple 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Minh Phu Group: 

Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., aka 

Minh Phat Seafood aka 

Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., 

Ltd.) aka 

Minh Phu Seafood Corp. aka 

Minh Phu Seafood Corporation aka 

Minh Qui Seafood aka 

Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. 

Minh Phu Seafood Pte aka 

Minh Phat aka 

Minh Qui 

Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................... * 0.09 

Nha Trang Seafoods Group: 

Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’) aka 

Nha Trang Seafoods aka 

Nha Trang Seaproduct Company Nha Trang Seafoods aka 

NT Seafoods Corporation (‘‘NT Seafoods’’) 

Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89 Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89’’) aka 

NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company (‘‘NTSF Seafoods’’) .................................................................................................... 0.00 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited (‘‘Amanda Foods’’) ................................................................................................................... 1.03 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13556 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

Exporter 

Simple 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited, aka 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’) aka 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company aka 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Limited Company aka 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited aka 

Bac Lieu Fis ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’) aka 

Camimex aka 

Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 aka 

Camau Seafood Factory No. 5 aka 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import & Export aka 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corp. (CAMIMEX–FAC 25) aka Frozen Factory No. 4 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’) aka 

Camimex aka 

Camau Seafood Factory No. 4 aka 

Camau Seafood Factory No. 5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 0.80 

C.P. Vietnam Livestock Company Limited aka 

C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corporation (‘‘C.P. Vietnam’’) aka 

C.P. Vietnam Livestock Corporation ............................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX–VIETNAM’’) aka 

Cadovimex-Vietnam aka 

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (‘‘Cadovimex’’) aka 

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Import-Export Company (Cadovimex) aka 

Cai Doi Vam Seafood aka 

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Im-Ex Company (Cadovimex) aka 

Cai Doi Vam Seafood Processing Factory aka 

Caidoivam Seafood Company (Cadovimex) aka 

Caidoivam Seafood Im-Ex Co ......................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘Cafatex Corp.’’) aka 

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘CAFATEX CORP.’’) aka 

Cantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex), aka 

Cafatex, aka 

Cafatex Vietnam, aka 

Xi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat Kau Cantho, aka 

Cas, aka 

Cas Branch, aka 

Cafatex Saigon, aka 

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, aka 

Cafatex Corporation, aka 

Taydo Seafood Enterprise aka 

Cafatex Corp. aka 

Cafatex Corporation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) aka 

Camranh Seafoods .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) aka 

Can Tho Agricultural Products aka 

CATACO aka 

Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Products Imex Company ........................................................................................................... 1.03 

Can Tho Import Export Fishery Limited Company (‘‘CAFISH’’) ...................................................................................................... 1.03 

Coastal Fishery Development aka 

Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (‘‘Cofidec’’) aka 

Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) aka 

COFIDEC aka 

Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation aka 

Coastal Fisheries Development Co. aka 

Coastal Fisheries Development Corp .............................................................................................................................................. 1.03 

Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka 

Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) aka 

Cuulong Seapro aka 

Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) aka 

Cuu Long Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka 

Cuu Long Seaproducts Company aka 

Cuu Long Seapro aka 

Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) aka 

Cuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro) aka 

Cuulong Seapro aka 

Cuulong Seaproduct Company ....................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) aka 

Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation aka 

Danang Seaproduct Import-Export Corporation aka 

Danang Seaproducts Import Export aka 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13557 

Exporter 

Simple 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Tho Quang Seafood Processing & Export Company aka 

Seaprodex Danang aka 

Tho Quang Seafood Processing and Export Company aka 

Tho Quang aka 

Tho Quang Co ................................................................................................................................................................................. 1.03 

Gallant Ocean (Vietnam) Co., Ltd ................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’) aka 

Incomfish aka 

Investment Commerce Fisheries Corp., aka 

Incomfish Corp., aka 

Incomfish Corporation aka 

Investment Commerce Fisheries aka 

Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation aka 

Incomfish Corporation ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Kim Anh Company Limited (‘‘Kim Anh’’) ......................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company aka 

Minh Hai Jostoco aka 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’) aka 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’) aka 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company aka 

Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company aka 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Co., aka 

Minh-Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company ............................................................................................. 1.03 

Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’) aka 

Sea Minh Hai aka 

Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company aka 

Seaprodex Minh Hai aka 

Seaprodex Min Hai aka 

Seaprodex Minh Hai (Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods Processing Co.) aka 

Seaprodex Minh Hai Factory aka 

Seaprodex Minh Hai Factory No. 69 aka 

Seaprodex Minh Hai Workshop 1 aka 

Seaprodex Minh Hai-Factory No. 78 aka 

Workshop I Seaprodex Minh Hai .................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (‘‘Seaprimex Co’’) aka 

Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’) aka 

Seaprimexco Vietnam aka 

Seaprimexco aka 

Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Seaprimexco’’) aka 

Minh Hai Seaproducts Import Export Corporation aka 

Seaprimexco aka 

Minh Hai Seaproducts Co Ltd. (Seaprimexco) aka 

Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Seaprimexco Vietnam’’) ................................................................................................ 1.03 

Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise aka 

Ngoc Sinh Seafoods aka 

Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprise aka 

Ngoc Sinh Fisheries aka 

Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprises aka 

Ngoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprises aka 

Ngoc Sinh aka 

Ngoc Sinh Seafood Processing Company aka 

Ngoc Sinh Seafoods (Private Enterprise) ....................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Ngoc Tri Seafood Joint Stock Company ......................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Nhat Duc Co., Ltd. 

Nhat Duc Co., Ltd. (‘‘Nhat Duc’’) ..................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) aka 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company aka 

Nhatrang Fisheries Joint Stock Company aka 

Nha Trang Fisco aka 

Nhatrang Fisco aka 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) aka 

Nha Trang Fisheries, Joint Stock aka 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (Nha Trang Fisco) ...................................................................................................... 1.03 

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import-Export Co., Ltd. aka.

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import Export Company Limited aka 

Phu Cuong Jostoco Corp ................................................................................................................................................................ 1.03 

Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’) aka 

Western Seafood Processing and Exporting Factory (‘‘Western Seafood’’) aka 

Phuong Nam Foodstuff Corp. aka 

Phuong Nam Co. Ltd ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
13558 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 

70See 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

71See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii) and 351.309(d)(1). 

72See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2). 

73See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

74See 19 CFR 351.310. 75See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3). 

Exporter 

Simple 

average 

margin 

(percent) 

Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’) aka 

Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company aka 

Fimex VN aka 

Sao Ta Seafood Factory aka 

Saota Seafood Factory .................................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’) aka 

Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (‘‘Stapimex’’) aka 

Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company aka 

Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company aka 

Stapimex aka 

Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company-(Stapimex) aka 

Stapimex Soc Trans Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company aka 

Stapmex ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation aka 

Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 aka 

Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory aka 

My Son Seafoods Factory aka 

Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory Vietnam ....................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company aka 

UT XI Aquatic Products Processing Company aka 

UT–XI Aquatic Products Processing Company aka 

UTXI aka 

UTXI Co. Ltd., aka 

Khanh Loi Seafood Factory aka 

Hoang Phuong Seafood Factory aka 

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation (‘‘UTXICO’’) aka 

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation aka 

UTXICO ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Viet Foods Co., Ltd. aka 

Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd ................................................................................................................................. 1.03 

Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. aka 

Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fish One’’) aka 

Viet Hai Seafoods Company Ltd. (‘‘Vietnam Fish One Co. Ltd.’’) .................................................................................................. 1.03 

Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation aka 

VINA Cleanfood ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1.03 

Vietnam-wide Entity ......................................................................................................................................................................... 25.76 

* de minimis. 

Public Comment 

The Department will disclose to 

parties to this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of these 

preliminary results.70 Interested parties 

may submit written comments (case 

briefs) within 30 days of publication of 

the preliminary results and rebuttal 

comments (rebuttal briefs) within five 

days after the time limit for filing case 

briefs.71 Rebuttal briefs must be limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs.72

Parties who submit arguments are 

requested to submit with the argument: 

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

summary of the argument; and (3) a 

table of authorities. 

Interested parties, who wish to 

request a hearing, or to participate if one 

is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, U.S. Department 

of Commerce, filed electronically using 

Import Administration’s Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Service System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). An electronically filed 

document must be received successfully 

in its entirety by the Department’s 

electronic records system, IA ACCESS, 

by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time within 

30 days after the date of publication of 

this notice.73 Requests should contain 

the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number, the number of 

participants, and a list of the issues to 

be discussed. If a request for a hearing 

is made, we will inform parties of the 

scheduled date for the hearing which 

will be held at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at 

a time and location to be determined.74

Parties should confirm by telephone the 

date, time, and location of the hearing. 

Unless the deadline is extended 

pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of 

the Act, the Department will issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, including the results of our 

analysis of the issues raised by the 

parties in their comments, within 120 

days after issuance of these preliminary 

results. 

Deadline for Submission of Publicly 

Available Surrogate Value Information 

The deadline for submission of 

publicly available information to value 

FOPs under 19 CFR 351.408(c) is 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results.75 If an 

interested party submits factual 

information less than ten days before, 

on, or after (if the Department has 

extended the deadline), the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information, an interested party may 

submit factual information to rebut, 

clarify, or correct the factual 

information no later than ten days after 

such factual information is served on 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 45 / Wednesday, March 7, 2012 / Notices 13559 

76See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). 

77See, e.g., 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. 

78See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

1The statutory deadline for the preliminary 

determination is March 24, 2012, which is a 

Saturday. When the statutory deadline falls on a 

weekend, it is the Department’s practice to issue the 

determination on the next business day, which in 

this case would be March 26, 2012. See Notice of 

Clarification: Application of ‘‘Next Business Day’’ 

Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines 

Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 

FR 24533 (May 10, 2005) (Next Business Day Rule). 

the interested party.76 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.77 Furthermore, the 

Department generally will not accept 

business proprietary information in 

either the surrogate value submissions 

or the rebuttals thereto, as the regulation 

regarding the submission of surrogate 

values allows only for the submission of 

publicly available information. 

Additionally, for each piece of factual 

information submitted with surrogate 

value rebuttal comments, the interested 

party must provide a written 

explanation of what information that is 

already on the record of the ongoing 

proceeding that the factual information 

is rebutting, clarifying, or correcting. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuing the final results of the 

review, the Department shall determine, 

and CBP shall assess, antidumping 

duties on all appropriate entries. The 

Department intends to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

review. We will calculate importerspecific ad valorem duty assessment 

rates based on the ratio of the total 

amount of the dumping margins 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of those same sales.78

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer-specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. However, 

the final results of this review shall be 

the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements, when imposed, will apply 

to all shipments of subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review, as provided by 

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

cash deposit rate for Nha Trang 

Seaproduct Group and Minh Phu will 

be the rate established in the final 

results of this administrative review; (2) 

for any previously reviewed or 

investigated Vietnam or non-Vietnam 

exporter, not covered in this 

administrative review, with a separate 

rate, the cash deposit rate will be the 

company-specific rate established in the 

most recent segment of this proceeding; 

(3) for all other Vietnam exporters, the 

cash deposit rate will continue to be the 

Vietnam-wide rate (i.e., 25.76 percent); 

and (4) the cash-deposit rate for any 

non-Vietnam exporter of subject 

merchandise from Vietnam will be the 

rate applicable to the Vietnam exporter 

that supplied that exporter. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice serves as a preliminary 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(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 antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are in accordance with sections 

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

CFR 351.213. 

Dated: February 28, 2012. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2012–5571 Filed 3–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–580–869] 

Large Residential Washers From the 

Republic of Korea: Postponement of 

Preliminary Determination in the 

Countervailing Duty Investigation 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Justin Neuman, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–0486. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 19, 2012, the Department 

of Commerce (the Department) initiated 

the countervailing duty investigation of 

large residential washers from the 

Republic of Korea. See Large Residential 

Washers From the Republic of Korea: 

Initiation of Countervailing Duty 

Investigation, 77 FR 4279 (January 27, 

2012). The current deadline for the 

completion of the preliminary 

determination is March 26, 2012.1

Postponement of Due Date for the 

Preliminary Determination 

Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act), requires the 

Department to issue the preliminary 

determination in a countervailing duty 

investigation within 65 days after the 

date on which the Department initiated 

the investigation. However, the 

Department may postpone making the 

preliminary determination until no later 

than 130 days after the date on which 

the administering authority initiated the 

investigation if, among other reasons, 

the petitioner makes a timely request for 

an extension pursuant to section 

703(c)(1)(A) of the Act. In the instant 

investigation, the petitioner, Whirlpool 

Corporation, made a timely request on 

February 28, 2012, requesting a 

postponement of the preliminary 

countervailing duty determination to 

130 days from the initiation date. See 19 

CFR 351.205(e) and the petitioner’s 

February 28, 2012, letter requesting 

postponement of the preliminary 

determination. 

Therefore, pursuant to 703(c)(1)(A) of 

the Act and because the Department 

does not find any compelling reason to 

deny the request, we are extending the 

due date for the preliminary 

determination to no later than 130 days 

after the date on which this 

investigation was initiated, or May 28, 

2012. Because May 28, 2012, falls on a 

federal holiday, the deadline for the 

completion of the preliminary 

determination is now May 29, 2012, the 

first business day after the 130th day 

from initiation. See Next Business Day 

Rule. 

This notice is issued and published 

pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(l). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES