[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13275-13284]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5449]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-533-840]


Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results 
of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Preliminary No Shipment 
Determination

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 India. The respondents which the 
Department selected for individual examination are Apex Exports (Apex) 
and Falcon Marine Exports Limited (Falcon). The respondents which were 
not selected for individual examination are listed in the ``Preliminary 
Results of the Review'' section of this notice. The period of review 
(POR) is February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.
    We preliminarily determine that Falcon has not made sales at below 
normal value (NV), while Apex has made sales at below NV, and, 
therefore, these sales are subject to antidumping duties. In addition, 
based on the preliminary results for the respondents selected for 
individual examination, we have preliminarily determined a margin for 
those companies that were not individually examined.
    If the preliminary results are adopted in our final results of 
administrative review, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary 
results.

DATES: Effective Date: March 6, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Henry Almond or Elizabeth Eastwood, 
AD/CVD Operations, Office 2, Import Administration, International Trade 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and 
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-
0049, or (202) 482-3874, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In February 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register 
an antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 
India.\1\

[[Page 13276]]

On February 1, 2011, the Department published in the Federal Register a 
notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the 
antidumping duty order of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India 
for the period February 1, 2010, through January 31, 2011.\2\ In 
response to timely requests from interested parties pursuant to 19 CFR 
351.213(b)(1) and (2) to conduct an administrative review of the U.S. 
sales of shrimp by numerous Indian producers/exporters, the Department 
published a notice of initiation of administrative review for 185 
companies.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 2005) (Shrimp Order).
    \2\ See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 
Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative 
Review, 76 FR 5559 (Feb. 1, 2011).
    \3\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, India, and 
Thailand: Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Reviews, 76 FR 18157 (Apr. 1, 2011) (Initiation Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department indicated that, in the 
event that we would limit the respondents selected for individual 
examination in accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended (the Act), we would select mandatory respondents for 
individual examination based upon CBP entry data. See Initiation 
Notice, 76 FR at 18157. In April 2011, we received comments on the 
issue of respondent selection from the petitioner,\4\ the American 
Shrimp Processors Association (ASPA), and Apex.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In April and May 2011, we received statements from 13 companies 
that indicated that they had no shipments of subject merchandise to the 
United States during the POR. Also in May 2011, after considering the 
large number of potential exporters or producers involved in this 
administrative review, and the resources available to the Department, 
we determined that it was not practicable to examine all exporters/
producers of subject merchandise for which a review was requested.\5\ 
As a result, pursuant to section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, we 
determined that we could reasonably individually examine only the two 
largest producers/exporters accounting for the largest volume of shrimp 
from India during the POR (i.e., Apex and Falcon). Accordingly, we 
issued the antidumping duty questionnaire to these companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/CVD 
Operations, from Henry Almond, Senior Analyst, Office 2, AD/CVD 
Operations entitled, ``2010-2011 Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: Selection of 
Respondents for Individual Review,'' dated May 24, 2011 (Respondent 
Selection Memo).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June and July 2011, we received responses from Apex and Falcon 
to section A (i.e., the section related to general information), and 
sections B and C (i.e., the sections covering comparison market and 
U.S. sales, respectively) of the questionnaire.
    In August 2011, we selected Japan as the appropriate third country 
comparison market for Falcon.\6\ Also in this month, we received the 
response to section D (i.e., the section covering cost of production 
(COP) and constructed value (CV) of the questionnaire) of the 
questionnaire from Falcon, as well as requests from the petitioner and 
the ASPA that the Department initiate a sales-below-cost investigation 
related to Apex's sales to the United Kingdom.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See the Memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/
CVD Operations, from the Team entitled, ``2010-2011 Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 
India--Selection of the Appropriate Third Country Market for Falcon 
Marine Exports Limited,'' dated August 9, 2011 (Falcon Third Country 
Market Memo).
    \7\ The United Kingdom was Apex's only viable third country 
market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In September 2011, we initiated a sales-below-cost investigation 
for Apex.\8\ On this same date, we required Apex to respond to section 
D of the questionnaire. Apex submitted its response in October 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See the memorandum to James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/
CVD Operations, from the Team entitled, ``The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 
Action Committee's and the American Shrimp Processors Association's 
Allegations of Sales Below the Cost of Production for Apex 
Exports,'' dated September 12, 2011 (Sales-Below-Cost-Memo for 
Apex).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 5, 2011, the Department extended the preliminary results 
in the current review to no later than February 28, 2012.\9\ From 
October 2011 through January 2012, we issued supplemental sales and 
cost questionnaires to Apex and Falcon. Apex and Falcon responded to 
these questionnaires from November 2011 through February 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India and Thailand: 
Notice of Extension of Time Limits for the Preliminary Results of 
the 2010-2011 Administrative Reviews, 76 FR 61668 (Oct. 5, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scope of the Order

    The scope of this order includes certain frozen warmwater shrimp 
and prawns, whether wild-caught (ocean harvested) or farm-raised 
(produced by aquaculture), head-on or head-off, shell-on or peeled, 
tail-on or tail-off,\10\ deveined or not deveined, cooked or raw, or 
otherwise processed in frozen form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Tails'' in this context means the tail fan, which 
includes the telson and the uropods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The frozen warmwater shrimp and prawn products included in the 
scope of this 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 Thai white prawn (Penaeus indicus).
    Frozen shrimp and prawns that are packed with marinade, spices or 
sauce are included in the scope of this 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 this order.
    Excluded from the scope are: (1) Breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 
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 (HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 0306.23.00.40); (4) 
shrimp and prawns in prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 1605.20.05.10); 
(5) dried shrimp and prawns; (6) canned warmwater shrimp and prawns 
(HTSUS subheading 1605.20.10.40); and (7) certain battered shrimp. 
Battered shrimp is a shrimp-based 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 ten 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. When dusted in

[[Page 13277]]

accordance with the definition of dusting above, the battered shrimp 
product is also coated with a wet viscous layer containing egg and/or 
milk, and par-fried.
    The products covered by this order are currently classified under 
the following HTSUS subheadings: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 
0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 
0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 
1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. 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 this order is 
dispositive.

Preliminary Determination of No Shipments

    As noted in the ``Background'' section above, in April and May 
2011, 13 companies notified the Department that they had no shipments 
of subject merchandise to the United States during the POR. The 
Department subsequently confirmed with CBP the no-shipment claim made 
by nine of these companies. Because the evidence on the record 
indicates that these companies did not export subject merchandise to 
the United States during the POR, we preliminarily determine that the 
following nine companies had no reviewable transactions during the POR:
    (1) Accelerated Freeze Drying Company Ltd.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This company was listed in the Initiation Notice as 
``Accelerated Freeze-Drying C.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Amulya Seafoods
    (3) Baby Marine International
    (4) Baby Marine Sarass
    (5) BMR Exports
    (6) Castlerock Fisheries Ltd.
    (7) Esmario Export Enterprises
    (8) Koluthara Exports Ltd.
    (9) Penver Products (P) Ltd.
    Since the implementation of the 1997 regulations, our practice 
concerning no-shipment respondents has been to rescind the 
administrative review if the respondent certifies that it had no 
shipments and we have confirmed through our examination of CBP data 
that there were no shipments of subject merchandise during the POR.\12\ 
As a result, in such circumstances, we normally instruct CBP to 
liquidate any entries from the no-shipment company at the deposit rate 
in effect on the date of entry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 
27393 (May 19, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our May 6, 2003, ``automatic assessment'' clarification, we 
explained that, where respondents in an administrative review 
demonstrate that they had no knowledge of sales through resellers to 
the United States, we would instruct CBP to liquidate such entries at 
the all-others rate applicable to the proceeding.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 
Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) 
(Assessment Policy Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because ``as entered'' liquidation instructions do not alleviate 
the concerns which the May 2003 clarification was intended to address, 
we find it appropriate in this case to instruct CBP to liquidate any 
existing entries of merchandise produced by the nine companies listed 
above, and exported by other parties, at the all-others rate, should we 
continue to find that these companies had no shipments of subject 
merchandise during the POR in our final results.\14\ In addition, the 
Department finds that it is more consistent with the May 2003 
clarification not to rescind the review in part in these circumstances 
but, rather, to complete the review with respect to these nine 
companies and issue appropriate instructions to CBP based on the final 
results of the review. See the ``Assessment Rates'' section of this 
notice, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, e.g., Magnesium Metal From the Russian Federation: 
Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 
26922 (May 13, 2010), unchanged in Magnesium Metal From the Russian 
Federation: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 
75 FR 56989 (Sept. 17, 2010); and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in 
Coils From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative 
Review, 75 FR 76700, 76701 (Dec. 9, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the remaining four companies (i.e., Kay Kay 
Exports, Sharat Industries Limited, Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd., and 
Veejay Impex) which certified that they had no shipments during the 
POR, we have requested entry documentation from CBP to clarify the no-
shipment certifications. Because this information was not received in 
time for use in the preliminary results, we are unable to preliminarily 
conclude that Kay Kay Exports, Sharat Industries Limited, Uniroyal 
Marine Exports, and Veejay Impex had no reviewable transactions in this 
administrative review. Therefore we have assigned each of these 
companies a preliminary dumping rate based on the margin calculated for 
Apex (because it is the only mandatory respondent for which we 
calculated an above de minimis margin). However, we plan to consider 
the CBP entry documentation in the final results.

Comparisons to Normal Value

    To determine whether sales of shrimp from India to the United 
States were made at less than NV, we compared the export price (EP) to 
the NV, as described in the ``Export Price'' and ``Normal Value'' 
sections of this notice.
    Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(ii) and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, 
for Apex and Falcon, we compared the EPs of individual U.S. 
transactions to the weighted-average NV of the foreign like product in 
the appropriate corresponding calendar month where there were sales 
made in the ordinary course of trade, as discussed in the ``Cost of 
Production Analysis'' section below.

Product Comparisons

    In accordance with section 771(16)(A) of the Act, we considered all 
products produced by Apex and Falcon covered by the description in the 
``Scope of the Order'' section, above, to be foreign like products for 
purposes of determining appropriate product comparisons to U.S. sales. 
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. sales of shrimp to 
sales of shrimp made in the selected third country market within the 
contemporaneous window period, which extends from three months prior to 
the month of the first U.S. sale until two months after the month of 
the last U.S. sale.
    Where there were no sales of identical merchandise in the 
comparison market made in the ordinary course of trade to compare to 
U.S. sales, according to section 771(16)(B) of the Act, we compared 
U.S. sales to sales of the most similar foreign like product made in 
the ordinary course of trade. In making the product comparisons, we 
matched foreign like products based on the physical characteristics 
reported by Apex and Falcon in the following order: Cooked form, head 
status, count size, organic certification, shell status, vein status, 
tail status, other shrimp preparation, frozen form, flavoring, 
container weight, presentation, species, and preservative. Where there 
were no sales of identical or similar merchandise, we made product 
comparisons using constructed value (CV), as discussed in the 
``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section, 
below. See section 773(a)(4) of the Act.

Export Price

    For all U.S. sales made by Apex and Falcon, we used EP methodology, 
in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act, because the subject 
merchandise was sold by the producer/exporter outside of the United 
States directly to the first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 
States prior to importation and constructed export price (CEP)

[[Page 13278]]

methodology was not otherwise warranted based on the facts of record.

A. Apex

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. We made deductions from the starting price for 
foreign inland freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling 
expenses, foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, international freight 
expenses, terminal handling charges, marine insurance expenses, U.S. 
customs duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise 
processing fees), U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, and U.S. inland 
freight expenses, where appropriate, in accordance with section 
772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

B. Falcon

    We based EP on packed prices to the first unaffiliated purchaser in 
the United States. Where appropriate, we made deductions from the 
starting price for discounts, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We 
also made deductions from the starting price for cold storage expenses, 
loading and unloading expenses, trailer hire expenses, foreign inland 
freight expenses, port charges, export survey charges, terminal 
handling charges, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, 
international freight expenses, marine insurance expenses, U.S. customs 
duties (including harbor maintenance fees and merchandise processing 
fees), and U.S. brokerage and handling expenses, where appropriate, in 
accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act.

Normal Value

A. Home Market Viability and Selection of Comparison Markets

    In order to determine whether there was a sufficient volume of 
sales in the home market to serve as a viable basis for calculating NV, 
we compared the volume of home market sales of the foreign like product 
to the volume of U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in accordance 
with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act.
    We determined that the aggregate volume of home market sales of the 
foreign like product for each of the respondents was insufficient to 
permit a proper comparison with U.S. sales of the subject merchandise. 
Regarding Apex, we selected the United Kingdom as the comparison market 
because it was Apex's only viable third country market. For Falcon, we 
selected Japan as the comparison market because, among other things, 
Falcon's sales of foreign like product in Japan were the most similar 
to the subject merchandise. For further discussion, see the Falcon 
Third Country Market Memo. Therefore, as the basis for comparison 
market sales, we used sales to the United Kingdom and Japan, 
respectively, for Apex and Falcon, in accordance with section 
773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.404.

B. Level of Trade

    Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act states that, to the extent 
practicable, the Department will calculate NV based on sales at the 
same level of trade (LOT) as the EP or CEP. Sales are made at different 
LOTs if they are made at different marketing stages (or their 
equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). Substantial differences in 
selling activities are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for 
determining that there is a difference in the stages of marketing.\15\ 
In order to determine whether the comparison market sales were at 
different stages in the marketing process than the U.S. sales, we 
reviewed the distribution system in each market (i.e., the chain of 
distribution), including selling functions, class of customer (customer 
category), and the level of selling expenses for each type of sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id; see also Certain Orange Juice From Brazil: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Notice of 
Intent Not To Revoke Antidumping Duty Order in Part, 75 FR 50999, 
51001 (Aug. 18, 2010), and accompanying Issues and Decision 
Memorandum at Comment 7 (OJ from Brazil).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, in identifying LOTs 
for EP and comparison market sales (i.e., NV based on either home 
market or third country prices),\16\ we consider the starting prices 
before any adjustments. For CEP sales, we consider only the selling 
activities reflected in the price after the deduction of expenses and 
profit under section 772(d) of the Act.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV LOT based on 
the LOT of the sales from which we derive selling expenses, general 
and administrative (G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where 
possible.
    \17\ See Micron Tech., Inc. v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 
1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When the Department is unable to match U.S. sales of the foreign 
like product in the comparison market at the same LOT as the EP or CEP, 
the Department may compare the U.S. sale to sales at a different LOT in 
the comparison market. In comparing EP or CEP sales at a different LOT 
in the comparison market, where available data make it possible, we 
make a LOT adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of the Act. Finally, 
for CEP sales only, if the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage of 
distribution than the LOT of the CEP and there is no basis for 
determining whether the difference in LOTs between NV and CEP affects 
price comparability (i.e., no LOT adjustment is possible), the 
Department shall grant a CEP offset, as provided in section 
773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See, e.g., OJ from Brazil, 75 FR at 51001.
    In this administrative review, we obtained information from both 
respondents regarding the marketing stages involved in making the 
reported foreign market and U.S. sales, including a description of the 
selling activities performed by each respondent for each channel of 
distribution. Company-specific LOT findings are summarized below.
1. Apex
    Apex reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market through a 
single channel of distribution (i.e., to trading companies). We 
examined the selling activities performed for U.S. sales and found that 
Apex performed the following selling functions: customer contact and 
price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight and the 
provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (in India and the 
United States); cold storage and inventory maintenance; quality-
assurance-related activities; and banking-related activities. These 
selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling function 
categories for analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight and 
delivery; (3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and (4) warranty 
and technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling function 
categories, we find that Apex performed sales and marketing, freight 
and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and warehousing for 
U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are made through a 
single distribution channel (i.e., direct sales to unaffiliated 
customers) and the selling activities to Apex's customers did not vary 
within this channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT 
in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the third country market, Apex also reported that 
it made sales to trading companies and that all selling functions were 
performed at the same levels of intensity as in the U.S. market. We 
examined the selling activities performed for third country sales and 
found that Apex performed the following selling functions: Customer 
contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight 
and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (in India); 
cold storage and inventory maintenance;

[[Page 13279]]

quality-assurance-related activities; and banking-related activities. 
Accordingly, based on these selling functions noted above, we find that 
Apex performed sales and marketing, freight and delivery services, and 
inventory maintenance and warehousing for all third country sales. 
Because all third country sales are made through a single distribution 
channel and the selling activities to Apex's customers did not vary 
within this channel, we preliminarily determine that there is one LOT 
in the third country market for Apex.
    Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to the third country market LOT 
and found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and third 
country market customers do not differ, as Apex performed the same 
selling functions at the same relative level of intensity in both 
markets. Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and third 
country markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a 
result, no LOT adjustment is warranted.
2. Falcon
    Falcon reported that it made EP sales in the U.S. market to trading 
companies. We examined the selling activities performed for U.S. sales 
and found that Falcon performed the following selling functions: 
Customer contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for 
freight and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (in 
India and the United States); cold storage and inventory maintenance; 
quality-assurance-related activities; and banking-related activities. 
These selling activities can be generally grouped into four selling 
function categories for analysis: (1) Sales and marketing; (2) freight 
and delivery; (3) inventory maintenance and warehousing; and (4) 
warranty and technical support. Accordingly, based on the selling 
function categories, we find that Falcon performed sales and marketing, 
freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing for U.S. sales. Because all sales in the United States are 
made through a single distribution channel (i.e., direct sales to 
unaffiliated customers) and the selling activities to Falcon's 
customers did not vary within this channel, we preliminarily determine 
that there is one LOT in the U.S. market.
    With respect to the third country market, Falcon reported that it 
made sales to trading companies and that all selling functions were 
performed at the same levels of intensity as in the U.S. market. We 
examined the selling activities performed for third country sales and 
found that Falcon performed the following selling functions: Customer 
contact and price negotiation; order processing; arranging for freight 
and the provision of customs clearance/brokerage services (in India); 
cold storage and inventory maintenance; quality-assurance-related 
activities; and banking-related activities. Accordingly, based on these 
selling functions noted above, we find that Falcon performed sales and 
marketing, freight and delivery services, and inventory maintenance and 
warehousing for all third country sales. Because all third country 
sales are made through a single distribution channel and the selling 
activities to Falcon's customers did not vary within this channel, we 
preliminarily determine that there is one LOT in the third country 
market for Falcon.
    Finally, we compared the EP LOT to the third country market LOT and 
found that the selling functions performed for U.S. and third country 
market customers do not differ, as Falcon performed the same selling 
functions at the same relative level of intensity in both markets. 
Therefore, we determine that sales to the U.S. and third country 
markets during the POR were made at the same LOT, and as a result, no 
LOT adjustment is warranted.

C. Cost of Production Analysis

    On August 12, 2011, the petitioner and the ASPA alleged that Apex 
made sales to the United Kingdom that were below the COP. Based on our 
analysis of the petitioner's allegation, we found that there were 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Apex's sales of shrimp in 
the United Kingdom were made at prices below its COP. Accordingly, 
pursuant to section 773(b) of the Act, we initiated a sales-below-cost 
investigation to determine whether Apex's sales were made at prices 
below its COP. See Sales-Below-Cost-Memo for Apex.
    In addition, we found that Falcon made sales in the same comparison 
market (i.e., Japan) below the COP in the most recently completed 
segment of this proceeding as of the date of initiation of this review, 
and such sales were disregarded.\18\ Thus, in accordance with section 
773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, we preliminarily find that there are 
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Falcon made sales in the 
third country market at prices below the cost of producing the 
merchandise during the current POR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial 
Rescission, and Final No Shipment Determination, 75 FR 41815 (July 
19, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Calculation of Cost of Production
    In accordance with section 773(b)(3) of the Act, we calculated the 
respondents' COPs based on the sum of their costs of materials and 
conversion for the foreign like product, plus amounts for G&A expenses 
and interest expenses (see ``Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices'' 
section, below, for treatment of third country selling expenses).
    The Department relied on the COP data submitted by each respondent 
in its most recently submitted cost database for the COP calculation, 
except that we revised the financial expenses reported by each 
respondent to exclude claimed interest income received on antidumping 
duty deposit refunds.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See the memorandum from Stephanie Arthur, Accountant, to 
Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of Accounting, entitled, ``Cost of 
Production and Constructed Value Calculation Adjustments for the 
Preliminary Results--Apex Exports,'' and the memorandum from Robert 
Greger, Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, Office of 
Accounting, entitled, ``Cost of Production and Constructed Value 
Calculation Adjustments for the Preliminary Results--Falcon Marine 
Exports Ltd.,'' dated February 28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the record evidence, neither Apex nor Falcon 
appeared to experience significant changes in the cost of manufacturing 
during the POR. Therefore, we followed our normal methodology of 
calculating an annual weighted-average cost.
2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices
    On a product-specific basis, we compared the adjusted weighted-
average COP to the comparison market sales prices of the foreign like 
product, as required under section 773(b) of the Act, in order to 
determine whether the sale prices were below the COP. For purposes of 
this comparison, we used COP exclusive of selling and packing expenses. 
The prices were exclusive of any applicable movement charges, 
discounts, direct and indirect selling expenses, and packing expenses.
3. Results of the COP Test
    In determining whether to disregard third country sales made at 
prices below the COP, we examined, in accordance with sections 
773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act: (1) whether, within an extended period 
of time, such sales were made in substantial quantities; and (2) 
whether such sales were made at prices which permitted the recovery of 
all costs within a reasonable period of time in the normal course of 
trade. In accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B)

[[Page 13280]]

and (C) of the Act, where less than 20 percent of the respondent's 
third country sales of a given product are at prices less than the COP, 
we do not disregard any below-cost sales of that product because we 
determine that in such instances the below-cost sales were not made 
within an extended period of time and in ``substantial quantities.'' 
Where 20 percent or more of a respondent's sales of a given product are 
at prices less than the COP, we disregard the below-cost sales when: 
(1) They were made within an extended period of time in ``substantial 
quantities,'' in accordance with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 
Act; and (2) based on our comparison of prices to the weighted-average 
COPs for the POR, they were at prices which would not permit the 
recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time, in accordance 
with section 773(b)(2)(D) of the Act.
    We found that, for certain products, more than 20 percent of Apex 
and Falcon's third country sales were at prices less than the COP and, 
in addition, such sales did not provide for the recovery of costs 
within a reasonable period of time. We therefore excluded these sales 
and used the remaining sales as the basis for determining NV, in 
accordance with section 773(b)(1) of the Act.
    For those U.S. sales of subject merchandise for which there were no 
comparable third country sales in the ordinary course of trade, we 
compared EP to CV in accordance with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See 
``Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value'' section 
below.

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Comparison Market Prices

1. Apex
    For Apex, we calculated NV based on delivered prices to 
unaffiliated customers in the United Kingdom. We made adjustments to 
the starting price, where appropriate, for discounts, in accordance 
with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made deductions for foreign inland 
freight expenses, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, various 
foreign miscellaneous shipment charges and international freight 
expenses (including terminal handling charges), under section 
773(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
    In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for 
direct selling expenses (including bank charges, Export Credit 
Guarantee Corporation (ECGC) fees, export inspection agency (EIA) fees, 
imputed credit expenses, and other direct selling expenses), and 
commissions. Because commissions were paid only in the comparison 
market, we made an upward adjustment to NV for the lesser of: (1) The 
amount of commission paid in the comparison market; or (2) the amount 
of indirect selling expenses (including inventory carrying costs) 
incurred in the U.S. market. See 19 CFR 351.410(e).
    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We also deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B)(i) of the Act.
2. Falcon
    We based NV for Falcon on prices to unaffiliated customers in 
Japan. We made adjustments, where appropriate, to the starting price 
for discounts, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made 
deductions, where appropriate, from the starting price for cold storage 
expenses, loading and unloading expenses, trailer hire expenses, 
foreign inland freight expenses, port charges, export survey charges, 
terminal and handling charges, foreign brokerage and handling expenses, 
and international freight expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of 
the Act.
    In addition, we made adjustments under section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of 
the Act and 19 CFR 351.410 for differences in circumstances of sale for 
direct selling expenses (including bank charges, ECGC fees, EIA fees, 
outside inspection/lab expenses, letter of credit amendment charges, 
imputed credit expenses, and other direct selling expenses) and 
commissions. Finally, where commissions were granted in the U.S. market 
but not in the comparison market, we made a downward adjustment to NV 
for the lesser of: (1) The amount of commission paid in the U.S. 
market; or (2) the amount of indirect selling expenses (including 
inventory carrying costs) incurred in the comparison market. See 19 CFR 
351.410(e). If commissions were granted in the comparison market but 
not in the U.S. market, we made an upward adjustment to NV following 
the same methodology.
    We recalculated Falcon's indirect selling expense ratio to exclude 
sales write-offs recorded in Falcon's financial statements after the 
POR, in accordance with our practice.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See the February 28, 2012, memorandum from David Crespo to 
the file entitled, ``Calculation Adjustments for Falcon Marine 
Exports Limited for the Preliminary Results in the 2010-2011 
Administrative Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 
India.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We made adjustments for differences in costs attributable to 
differences in the physical characteristics of the merchandise, in 
accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 
We also deducted third country packing costs and added U.S. packing 
costs, in accordance with sections 773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act.

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides that where NV cannot be based 
on comparison market sales, NV may be based on CV. Accordingly, for 
those shrimp products for which we could not determine the NV based on 
comparison market sales because, as noted in the ``Results of the COP 
Test'' section above, all sales of the comparable products failed the 
COP test, we based NV on CV.
    Sections 773(e)(1) and (2)(A) of the Act provide that CV shall be 
based on the sum of the cost of materials and fabrication for the 
imported merchandise, plus amounts for selling, general, and 
administrative (SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. packing costs. For 
each respondent, we calculated the cost of materials and fabrication 
based on the methodology described in the ``Cost of Production 
Analysis'' section, above. We based SG&A and profit for each respondent 
on the actual amounts incurred and realized by it in connection with 
the production and sale of the foreign like product in the ordinary 
course of trade for consumption in the comparison market, in accordance 
with section 773(e)(2)(A) of the Act.
    We made adjustments to CV for differences in circumstances of sale, 
in accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(iii) and (a)(8) of the Act and 
19 CFR 351.410. For comparisons to EP, we made circumstance-of-sale 
adjustments by deducting direct selling expenses incurred on comparison 
market sales from, and adding U.S. direct selling expenses to, CV. See 
19 CFR 351.410(c). We also made an adjustment for Falcon, when 
applicable, for comparison market indirect selling expenses, adjusted 
as noted above, to offset U.S. commissions in EP comparisons. See 19 
CFR 351.410(e).

[[Page 13281]]

Currency Conversion

    We made currency conversions into U.S. dollars for all transactions 
by Apex and all spot transactions by Falcon, in accordance with section 
773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415, based on the exchange rates in 
effect on the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 
Reserve Bank. In addition, Falcon reported that it purchased forward 
exchange contracts which were used to convert its sales prices into 
home market currency. Under 19 CFR 351.415(b), if a currency 
transaction on forward markets is directly linked to an export sale 
under consideration, the Department is directed to use the exchange 
rate specified with respect to such currency in the forward sale 
agreement to convert the foreign currency.\21\ Therefore, for Falcon we 
used the reported forward exchange rates for currency conversions where 
applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See, 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 
India, 69 FR 76916 (Dec. 23, 2004), and accompanying Issues and 
Decision Memorandum at Comment 6; see also Certain Frozen Warmwater 
Shrimp From India: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty 
Administrative Review, Partial Rescission of Review, and Preliminary 
No Shipment Determination, 76 FR 12025, 12031 (Mar. 4, 2011), 
unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From India: Final 
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, Partial 
Rescission, and Final No Shipment Determination, 76 FR 41203 (July 
13, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Preliminary Results of the Review

    We preliminarily determine that weighted-average dumping margins 
exist for the respondents for the period February 1, 2010, through 
January 31, 2011, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ This rate is based on the margin calculated for Apex 
because it is the only above de minimis margin calculated in this 
administrative review.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percent
                  Manufacturer/exporter                       margin
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apex Exports............................................            2.51
Falcon Marine Exports Limited...........................        0.13 (de
                                                                minimis)
Review-Specific Average Rate Applicable to the Following
 Companies: \22\
Abad Fisheries Pvt. Ltd.................................            2.51
Accelerated Freeze-Drying Co............................               *
Adilakshmi Enterprises..................................            2.51
Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd............................            2.51
Allansons Ltd...........................................            2.51
AMI Enterprises.........................................            2.51
Amulya Sea Foods........................................               *
Ananda Aqua Applications/Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Limited/           2.51
 Ananda Foods...........................................
Anand Aqua Exports......................................            2.51
Andaman Seafoods Pvt. Ltd...............................            2.51
Angelique Intl..........................................            2.51
Anjaneya Seafoods.......................................            2.51
Arvi Import & Export....................................            2.51
Asvini Exports..........................................            2.51
Asvini Fisheries Private Limited........................            2.51
Avanti Feeds Limited....................................            2.51
Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited.......................            2.51
Baby Marine Exports.....................................            2.51
Baby Marine International...............................               *
Baby Marine Sarass......................................               *
Bhatsons Aquatic Products...............................            2.51
Bhavani Seafoods........................................            2.51
Bijaya Marine Products..................................            2.51
Blue Water Foods & Exports P. Ltd.......................            2.51
Bluefin Enterprises.....................................            2.51
Bluepark Seafoods Pvt. Ltd..............................            2.51
BMR Exports.............................................               *
Britto Exports..........................................            2.51
C P Aquaculture (India) Ltd.............................            2.51
Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd..............................            2.51
Capithan Exporting Co...................................            2.51
Castlerock Fisheries Pvt. Ltd...........................               *
Chemmeens (Regd)........................................            2.51
Cherukattu Industries (Marine Div.).....................            2.51
Choice Canning Company..................................            2.51
Choice Trading Corporation Private Limited..............            2.51
Coastal Corporation Ltd.................................            2.51
Cochin Frozen Food Exports Pvt. Ltd.....................            2.51
Coreline Exports........................................            2.51
Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd..........................            2.51
Damco India Private.....................................            2.51
Devi Fisheries Limited..................................            2.51
Devi Marine Food Exports Private Ltd./Kader Exports                 2.51
 Private Limited/Kader Investment and Trading Company
 Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./Liberty
 Oil Mills Ltd./Premier Marine Products/Universal Cold
 Storage Private Limited................................
Diamond Seafoods Exports/Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./            2.51
 Kadalkanny Frozen Foods/Theva & Company................
Digha Seafood Exports...................................            2.51
Esmario Export Enterprises..............................               *
Exporter Coreline Exports...............................            2.51
Five Star Marine Exports Private Limited................            2.51

[[Page 13282]]

 
Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd...........................            2.51
Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd..............................            2.51
G A Randerian Limited...................................            2.51
Gadre Marine Exports....................................            2.51
Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd..........................            2.51
Gayatri Seafoods........................................            2.51
Geo Aquatic Products (P) Ltd............................            2.51
Geo Seafoods............................................            2.51
Goodwill Enterprises....................................            2.51
Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd.............................            2.51
GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd....................................            2.51
Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd........................            2.51
Harmony Spices Pvt. Ltd.................................            2.51
HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd..........................            2.51
Hindustan Lever, Ltd....................................            2.51
Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage.............................            2.51
Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd...............................            2.51
Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at APM--Mafco             2.51
 Yard, Sector--18, Vashi, Navi, Mumbai--400 705, India).
Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. (located at Jawar Naka,            2.51
 Porbandar, Gujarat, 360 575, India)....................
IFB Agro Industries Ltd.................................            2.51
Indian Aquatic Products.................................            2.51
Indo Aquatics...........................................            2.51
Innovative Foods Limited................................            2.51
International Freezefish Exports........................            2.51
Interseas...............................................            2.51
ITC Ltd.................................................            2.51
ITC Limited, International Business.....................            2.51
Jagadeesh Marine Exports................................            2.51
Jaya Satya Marine Exports...............................            2.51
Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd......................            2.51
Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private Limited...................            2.51
Jinny Marine Traders....................................            2.51
Jiya Packagings.........................................            2.51
K R M Marine Exports Ltd................................            2.51
Kalyanee Marine.........................................            2.51
Kanch Ghar..............................................            2.51
Kay Kay Exports.........................................            2.51
Kings Marine Products...................................            2.51
Koluthara Exports Ltd...................................               *
Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. Ltd......................            2.51
Landauer Ltd............................................            2.51
Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd............................            2.51
Magnum Estates Limited..................................            2.51
Magnum Export...........................................            2.51
Magnum Sea Foods Limited................................            2.51
Malabar Arabian Fisheries...............................            2.51
Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd.................................            2.51
Mangala Marine Exim India Pvt. Ltd......................            2.51
Mangala Sea Products....................................            2.51
Meenaxi Fisheries Pvt. Ltd..............................            2.51
MSC Marine Exporters....................................            2.51
MSRDR Exports...........................................            2.51
MTR Foods...............................................            2.51
N.C. John & Sons (P) Ltd................................            2.51
Naga Hanuman Fish Packers...............................            2.51
Naik Frozen Foods.......................................            2.51
Naik Frozen Foods Pvt., Ltd.............................            2.51
Naik Seafoods Ltd.......................................            2.51
Navayuga Exports Ltd....................................            2.51
Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited..............................            2.51
NGR Aqua International..................................            2.51
Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd.................................            2.51
Nine Up Frozen Foods....................................            2.51
Overseas Marine Export..................................            2.51
Paragon Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd..............................            2.51
Penver Products (P) Ltd.................................               *
Pijikay International Exports P Ltd.....................            2.51
Pisces Seafood International............................            2.51
Premier Exports International...........................            2.51
Premier Marine Foods....................................            2.51
Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd...........................            2.51
R V R Marine Products Private Limited...................            2.51
Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd....................................            2.51

[[Page 13283]]

 
Raju Exports............................................            2.51
Ram's Assorted Cold Storage Ltd.........................            2.51
Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage...............................            2.51
Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd...............................            2.51
Razban Seafoods Ltd.....................................            2.51
RBT Exports.............................................            2.51
RDR Exports.............................................            2.51
Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd................................            2.51
Rohi Marine Private Ltd.................................            2.51
S & S Seafoods..........................................            2.51
S. A. Exports...........................................            2.51
S Chanchala Combines....................................            2.51
Safa Enterprises........................................            2.51
Sagar Foods.............................................            2.51
Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd..........................            2.51
Sagar Samrat Seafoods...................................            2.51
Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd...........................            2.51
SAI Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd.............................            2.51
SAI Sea Foods...........................................            2.51
Sandhya Aqua Exports....................................            2.51
Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd...........................            2.51
Sandhya Marines Limited.................................            2.51
Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd..........................            2.51
Satya Seafoods Private Limited..........................            2.51
Sawant Food Products....................................            2.51
Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd...............................            2.51
Selvam Exports Private Limited..........................            2.51
Sharat Industries Ltd...................................            2.51
Shimpo Exports..........................................            2.51
Shippers Exports........................................            2.51
Shroff Processed Food & Cold Storage P Ltd..............            2.51
Silver Seafood..........................................            2.51
Sita Marine Exports.....................................            2.51
Sowmya Agri Marine Exports..............................            2.51
Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd.................................            2.51
Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports........................            2.51
Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage................................            2.51
Sri Sakthi Marine Products P Ltd........................            2.51
Sri Satya Marine Exports................................            2.51
Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine Foods Pvt. Ltd............            2.51
Srikanth International..................................            2.51
SSF Ltd.................................................            2.51
Star Agro Marine Exports Private Limited................            2.51
Sun Bio-Technology Ltd..................................            2.51
Suryamitra Exim (P) Ltd.................................            2.51
Suvarna Rekha Exports Private Limited...................            2.51
Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd.............................            2.51
TBR Exports Pvt Ltd.....................................            2.51
Teekay Marine P. Ltd....................................            2.51
Tejaswani Enterprises...................................            2.51
The Waterbase Ltd.......................................            2.51
Triveni Fisheries P Ltd.................................            2.51
Uniroyal Marine Exports Ltd.............................            2.51
Usha Seafoods...........................................            2.51
V.S Exim Pvt Ltd........................................            2.51
Veejay Impex............................................            2.51
Victoria Marine & Agro Exports Ltd......................            2.51
Vinner Marine...........................................            2.51
Vishal Exports..........................................            2.51
Wellcome Fisheries Limited..............................            2.51
West Coast Frozen Foods Private Limited.................           2.51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* No shipments or sales subject to this review.

Disclosure and Public Hearing

    The Department will disclose to parties the calculations performed 
in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the 
date of publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 351.224(b). Pursuant to 
19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs not later 
than the later of 30 days after the date of publication of this notice 
or one week after the issuance of the final verification report for 
Falcon. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, 
may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case 
briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit case briefs or 
rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each 
argument: (1) A

[[Page 13284]]

statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a 
table of authorities. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).
    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to 
request a hearing, or to participate if one is requested, must submit a 
written request to the Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, 
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. Requests 
should contain: (1) The party's name, address and telephone number; (2) 
the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. 
Issues raised in the hearing will be limited to those raised in the 
respective case briefs. The Department will issue the final results of 
this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of 
the issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after 
the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 
751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

Assessment Rates

    Upon completion of the administrative review, the Department shall 
determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate 
entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). The Department will 
issue appropriate appraisement instructions for the companies subject 
to this review directly to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of 
the final results of this review.
    For Apex and Falcon, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem 
duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of 
antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total 
entered value of the sales. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).
    For the companies which were not selected for individual review, we 
will calculate an assessment rate based on the weighted average of the 
cash deposit rates calculated for the companies selected for individual 
review excluding any which are de minimis or determined entirely on 
AFA.
    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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 
liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which 
the assessment rate is de minimis. 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. See section 
751(a)(2)(C) of the Act.
    The Department clarified its ``automatic assessment'' regulation on 
May 6, 2003. See Assessment Policy Notice. This clarification will 
apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by 
companies included in the final results of this review for which the 
reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the 
intermediary (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or exporter) was 
destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP 
to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no 
rate for the intermediary involved in the transaction. See Assessment 
Policy Notice for a full discussion of this clarification.

Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all 
shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from 
warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date 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 each specific 
company listed above will be that established in the final results of 
this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, 
therefore, de minimis within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1), in 
which case the cash deposit rate will be zero; (2) for previously 
reviewed or investigated companies not participating in this review, 
the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate 
published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm 
covered in this review, or the original less-than-fair-value (LTFV) 
investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be 
the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of 
the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other 
manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 10.17 percent, the all-
others rate made effective by the LTFV investigation. See Shrimp Order, 
70 FR at 5148. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain 
in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of 
their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate 
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation 
of the relevant entries during this 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 published in accordance 
with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

    Dated: February 28, 2012.
Ronald K. Lorentzen,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 2012-5449 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P