Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices 15039 

1See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of the Seventh Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 55872 

(September 9, 2011) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’). 

2See Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Final Results of the Seventh 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 

81913 (December 29, 2010). 

3This includes: Catfish Farmers of America and 

individual U.S. catfish processors, America’s Catch, 

Consolidated Catfish Companies, LLC dba Country 

Select Catfish, Delta Pride Catfish, Inc., Harvest 

Select Catfish, Inc., Heartland Catfish Company, 

Pride of the Pond, and Simmons Farm Raised 

Catfish, Inc. (‘‘Petitioners’’) 

4These companies include: Vinh Hoan; Vinh 

Quang Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Vinh Quang’’); QVD 

Food Company Ltd. (‘‘QVD’’) (the Department is 

treating QVD, QVD Dong Thap Food Co., Ltd., and 

Thuan Hung Co., Ltd. as a single entity in this 

review); and certain separate rate companies. 

5 Vietnam Association of Seafood Exports and 

Producers. 

6Until July 1, 2004, these products were 

classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 

(Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish 

Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater 

Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) 

of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these 

products were classifiable under tariff article code 

0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species 

Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. On 

March 2, 2011, the Department added two HTSUS 

Continued 

ADDRESSES: For a copy of the system of 

records please mail requests to: Counsel 

to the Inspector General, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 7892, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Counsel to the Inspector General, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Room 7892, 

1401 Constitution Avenue NW., 

Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 19, 2012, the DOC published 

and requested comments on proposed 

amendments to the Privacy Act System 

of Records titled, at that time, 

‘‘Investigative and Inspection Records— 

COMMERCE/DEPT–12.’’ Upon 

amendment, the system will be titled 

‘‘COMMERCE/DEPT–12, OIG 

Investigative Records.’’ The amendment 

serves to generally update the system of 

records notice by, among other things, 

updating OIG’s practices for 

electronically storing, retrieving, and 

safeguarding records in the system and 

updating OIG routine uses. No 

comments were received in response to 

the request for comments. By this 

notice, the DOC is adopting the 

proposed amendment to the system as 

final without changes effective March 

14, 2012. 

Dated: March 8, 2012. 

Jonathan R. Cantor, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Chief Privacy 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–6145 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

Seventh Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published the 

Preliminary Results of the seventh 

administrative review and sixth new 

shipper review of the antidumping duty 

order on certain frozen fish fillets 

(‘‘frozen fish fillets’’) from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’).1 We 

gave interested parties an opportunity to 

comment on the Preliminary Results 

and, based upon our analysis of the 

comments and information received, we 

made changes to the margin calculations 

for the final results of these reviews. 

The final weighted-average margins are 

listed below in the ‘‘Final Results of the 

Reviews’’ section of this notice. The 

period of review (‘‘POR’’) is August 1, 

2009, through July 31, 2010. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexis Polovina or Javier Barrientos, 

AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–3927 or (202) 482– 

2243, respectively. 

Case History 

As noted above, on September 9, 

2011, the Department published the 

Preliminary Results of this 

administrative review. We extended the 

deadlines for submission of surrogate 

value (‘‘SV’’) comments and case briefs 

multiple times based on requests from 

interested parties. On December 29, 

2011, the Department fully extended the 

time limit for completion of the final 

results of this administrative review.2

On November 15, 2011, and January 6, 

2012, parties submitted SV comments 

and SV rebuttal comments, respectively. 

On January 13, 2012, and January 27, 

2012, parties submitted case and 

rebuttal briefs, respectively. 

On December 30, 2011, Petitioners 3

submitted comments on Vinh Hoan 

Corporation’s (‘‘Vinh Hoan’’) factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’) methodology. On 

January 9, 2012, the Department placed 

certain factual information from the 

sixth administrative review regarding 

Vinh Hoan on the record, and also 

issued a supplemental questionnaire to 

Vinh Hoan. On January 18, 2012, Vinh 

Hoan responded to the supplemental 

questionnaire. On February 1 and 

February 6, 2012, parties submitted case 

and rebuttal briefs, respectively, 

pertaining to Vinh Hoan’s FOP 

methodology. On December 29, 2011, 

January 24, 2012, and February 21, 

2012, Petitioners and/or their counsel 

met with officials from the Department. 

On February 16, 2012, counsel for 

certain Respondents 4 and VASEP,5 an 

interested party, met with officials from 

the Department. As a result of our 

analysis, we have made changes to the 

Preliminary Results. 

Scope of the Order 

The product covered by the order is 

frozen fish fillets, including regular, 

shank, and strip fillets and portions 

thereof, whether or not breaded or 

marinated, of the species Pangasius 

Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus 

(also known as Pangasius Pangasius), 

and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish 

fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. 

The fillet products covered by the scope 

include boneless fillets with the belly 

flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless 

fillets with the belly flap removed 

(‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets 

cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’), 

which include fillets cut into strips, 

chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other 

shape. Specifically excluded from the 

scope are frozen whole fish (whether or 

not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen 

belly-flap nuggets. Frozen whole 

dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and 

eviscerated. Steaks are bone-in, crosssection cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are 

the belly-flaps. The subject merchandise 

will be hereinafter referred to as frozen 

‘‘basa’’ and ‘‘tra’’ fillets, which are the 

Vietnamese common names for these 

species of fish. These products are 

classifiable under tariff article codes 

0304.29.6033, 0304.62.0020, 

0305.59.0000, 0305.59.4000, 

1604.19.2000, 1604.19.2100, 

1604.19.3000, 1604.19.3100, 

1604.19.4000, 1604.19.4100, 

1604.19.5000, 1604.19.5100, 

1604.19.6100, 1604.19.8100 (Frozen 

Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius 

including basa and tra) of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).6 The order 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15040 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices 

numbers at the request of U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection (‘‘CBP’’): 1604.19.2000 and 1604 

19.3000. On January 30, 2012, the Department 

added eight HTSUS numbers at the request of U.S. 

CBP: 0304.62.0020, 0305.59.0000, 1604.19.2100, 

1604.19.3100, 1604.19.4100, 1604.19.5100, 

1604.19.6100, 1604.19.8100. 

7 International Development & Investment 

Corporation (‘‘IDI’’); Cuu Long Fish Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘CL Fish’’); Thien Ma Seafood Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘THIMACO’’); and NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘NTSF’’). 

8See Preliminary Results. 

9See Notice of Final Results of Administrative 

Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 73 FR 15479 (March 

17, 2008) and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum (‘‘3rd AR Final Results’’). 

10See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s 

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as 

further developed in Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994). 

11These companies include: (1) Anvifish Co., 

Ltd.; (2) Anvifish JSC; (3) Acomfish; (4) Bien Dong 

Seafood; (5) Binh An; (6) CASEAMEX; (7) ESS LLC; 

(8) East Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd.; (9) 

Hiep Thanh; (10) South Vina; and (11) Vinh Quang 

(collectively, ‘‘Separate-Rate Applicants’’). 

12See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and 

Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 52273, 52275 

(September 9, 2008) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 6. 

13See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United 

Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews and Rescission of Review in 

Part, 73 FR 52823, 52824 (September 11, 2008) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 16. 

covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the 

above specification, regardless of tariff 

classification. Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, our written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Analysis of Comments Received 

All issues raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs by parties are addressed 

in the ‘‘Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Issues and Decision Memorandum for 

the Final Results of the Seventh 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review,’’ dated concurrently with this 

notice (‘‘Issues & Decision Memo’’), and 

which is hereby adopted by this notice. 

A list of the issues which parties raised 

is attached to this notice as an 

Appendix. Parties can find a complete 

discussion of all issues raised in this 

review and the corresponding 

recommendation in this public 

memorandum which is on file 

electronically via Import 

Administration’s Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Centralized 

Electronic Services System (‘‘IA 

ACCESS’’). Access to IA ACCESS is 

available in the Central Records Unit 

(‘‘CRU’’) of the main Commerce 

Building, Room 7046. In addition, a 

complete version of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum is accessible on 

the Web at http://trade.gov/frn. The 

paper copy and electronic versions of 

the Issues and Decision Memorandum 

are identical in content. 

Final Partial Rescission 

In the Preliminary Results, the 

Department preliminarily rescinded the 

review with respect to four companies: 

(1) IDI; (2) CL–Fish; (3) THIMACO; and 

(4) NTSF.7 These companies reported 

that they had no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. As we stated in the 

Preliminary Results, our examination of 

shipment data from U.S. Customs and 

Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) for these 

companies confirmed that there were no 

entries of subject merchandise from 

them during the POR.8 The Department 

did not receive any comments regarding 

the preliminary rescission for any 

company claiming no shipments. 

Therefore, we are rescinding the 

administrative review with respect to 

these four companies. 

Changes Since the Preliminary Results 

Based on a review of the record and 

comments received from interested 

parties regarding our Preliminary 

Results, we have made certain revisions 

to the margin calculation for Vinh Hoan, 

and QVD. For the reasons explained in 

the I&D Memo at Comment 1, we have 

changed our primary surrogate country 

selection from Indonesia to Bangladesh. 

For all other changes to the calculations 

of Vinh Hoan and QVD, see the I&D 

Memo and company-specific analysis 

memorandum. For changes to the SVs, 

see the I&D Memo and ‘‘Memorandum 

to the File, through Matthew Renkey, 

Acting Program Manager, AC/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Javier 

Barrientos, Senior Case Analyst, and 

Alexis Polovina, Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, Seventh 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Surrogate Values for the Final Results,’’ 

dated March 7, 2012. 

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.9 None of the 

parties to this proceeding have 

contested such treatment. Accordingly, 

we calculated NV in accordance with 

section 773(c) of the Act, which applies 

to NME countries. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department holds a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and, thus, 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of subject 

merchandise in an NME country this 

single rate unless an exporter can 

demonstrate that it is sufficiently 

independent so as to be entitled to a 

separate rate.10 In the Preliminary 

Results, we determined that in addition 

to the mandatory respondents, the 

Separate-Rate Applicants 11 also met the 

criteria for separate-rate status. The 

separate rate is determined based on the 

estimated weighted-average 

antidumping margins established for 

exporters and producers individually 

investigated, excluding zero and de 

minimis margins or margins based 

entirely on AFA.12

The statute and the Department’s 

regulations do not address the 

establishment of a rate to be applied to 

individual companies not selected for 

examination when the Department 

limited its examination in an 

administrative review pursuant to 

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

we have looked to section 735(c)(5) of 

the Act, which provides instructions for 

calculating the all-others rate in an 

investigation, for guidance when 

calculating the rate for respondents we 

did not examine in an administrative 

review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act 

articulates a preference that we are not 

to calculate an all-others rate using any 

zero or de minimis margins or any 

margins based entirely on facts 

available. Accordingly, the 

Department’s usual practice has been to 

average the rates for the selected 

companies, excluding zero, de minimis 

and rates based entirely on facts 

available.13 Section 735(c)(5)(B) of the 

Act also provides that, where all 

margins are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on facts available, we may use 

‘‘any reasonable method’’ for assigning 

the rate to non-selected respondents, 

including ‘‘averaging the estimated 

weighted-average dumping margins 

determined for the exporters and 

producers individually investigated.’’ 

For this administrative review, the 

Department has calculated positive 

margins for one mandatory respondent, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices 15041 

14This rate is applicable to the Vinh Hoan Group 

which includes Vinh Hoan, Van Duc, and VD TG. 

QVD. Accordingly, consistent with our 

practice, for these final results, the 

Department has preliminarily 

established a margin for the SeparateRate Applicants based on the rate 

calculated for one of the mandatory 

respondents, QVD. The rate established 

for the Separate-Rate Applicants is a 

per-unit rate of $0.03 dollars per 

kilogram. Entities receiving this rate are 

identified by name in the ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. 

Vietnam-Wide Rate and Vietnam-Wide 

Entity 

As noted in the Preliminary Results, 

because some parties for which a review 

was requested did not apply for separate 

rate status, the Vietnam-Wide entity is 

considered to be under review in this 

segment of the proceeding. In NME 

proceedings, ‘‘ ‘rates’ may consist of a 

single dumping margin applicable to all 

exporters and producers.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.107(d). 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. See 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). 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’s current rate of 

$2.11 per kilogram, the rate determined 

for the Vietnam-wide entity in this 

proceeding. See, e.g., Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and New Shipper Reviews, 75 

FR 12726 (March 17, 2010). 

Final Results of the Review 

The weighted-average dumping 

margins for the POR are asfollows: 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(dollars per 

kilogram) 

(1) Vinh Hoan 14 ....................... 0.00 

(2) QVD .................................... 0.03 

(3) Anvifish Co., Ltd .................. 0.03 

(4) Anvifish JSC ........................ 0.03 

(5) Acomfish ............................. 0.03 

(6) Bien Dong Seafood ............. 0.03 

(7) Binh An ............................... 0.03 

(8) CASEAMEX ........................ 0.03 

(9) ESS LLC ............................. 0.03 

(10) East Sea Seafoods Joint 

Venture Co., Ltd .................... 0.03 

(11) Hiep Thanh ....................... 0.03 

(12) South Vina ........................ 0.03 

(13) Vinh Quang ....................... 0.03 

Vietnam-Wide Rate .................. 2.11 

Assessment Rates 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries of subject 

merchandise in accordance with the 

final results of this review. For 

assessment purposes, we calculated 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rates for merchandise 

subject to this review. Where 

appropriate, we calculated an ad 

valorem rate for each importer (or 

customer) by dividing the total dumping 

margins for reviewed sales to that party 

by the total entered values associated 

with those transactions. For dutyassessment rates calculated on this 

basis, we will direct CBP to assess the 

resulting ad valorem rate against the 

entered customs values for the subject 

merchandise. Where appropriate, we 

calculated a per-unit rate for each 

importer (or customer) by dividing the 

total dumping margins for reviewed 

sales to that party by the total sales 

quantity associated with those 

transactions. For duty-assessment rates 

calculated on this basis, we will direct 

CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate 

against the entered quantity of the 

subject merchandise. Where an importer 

(or customer)-specific assessment rate is 

de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent), 

the Department will instruct CBP to 

assess that importer (or customer’s) 

entries of subject merchandise without 

regard to antidumping duties, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the date of publication of these 

final results of review. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise from 

Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the publication date, as provided by 

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

Vinh Hoan, QVD, and the Separate-Rate 

Applicants, the cash deposit rate will be 

their respective rates established in the 

final results of this review, except if the 

rate is zero or de minimis no cash 

deposit will be required; (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed 

Vietnamese and non-Vietnamese 

exporters not listed above that have 

separate rates, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the exporter-specific rate 

published for the most recent period; (3) 

for all Vietnamese exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash deposit rate will be the 

Vietnam-Wide rate of $2.11 per 

kilogram; and (4) for all non-Vietnamese 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the Vietnamese exporters 

that supplied that non-Vietnamese 

exporter. These deposit requirements, 

when imposed, shall remain in effect 

until further notice. 

Reimbursement of Duties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this POR. Failure to 

comply with this requirement could 

result in the Department’s presumption 

that reimbursement of antidumping 

duties has occurred and the subsequent 

assessment of doubled antidumping 

duties. 

Administrative Protective Orders 

This notice also serves as a reminder 

to parties subject to administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their 

responsibility concerning the return or 

destruction of proprietary information 

disclosed under APO in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues 

to govern business proprietary 

information in this segment of the 

proceeding. Timely written notification 

of the return/destruction of APO 

materials or conversion to judicial 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
15042 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 14, 2012 / Notices 

1See Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results of the 

First Administrative Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order and Final Rescission of the 

Administrative Review, in Part, 76 FR 56397 

(September 13, 2011) (‘‘Final Results’’). 2See Final Results. 

3See SGL Carbon LLC v. United States, Consol. 

Court No. 11–00389 (Ct. Int’l Trade February 22, 

2012) (order granting the Department leave to 

publish amended final results correcting ministerial 

errors no later than March 16, 2012). 

4See also 19 CFR 351.224(f). 

5See Final Results. 

6See Ministerial Error Memo. 

protective order is hereby requested. 

Failure to comply with the regulations 

and terms of an APO is a violation 

which is subject to sanction. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

administrative review and notice in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i) of the Act. 

Dated: March 7, 2012. 

Paul Piquado, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

Appendix I—Issues & Decision 

Memorandum 

COMMENT I: SELECTION OF SURROGATE 

COUNTRY 

A. Economic Comparability 

B. Significant Producer of the Comparable 

Merchandise 

C. Data Considerations 

COMMENT II: SURROGATE VALUES 

A. Financial Ratios 

1. Selection of Surrogate Companies 

B. By-Products Offsets 

1. Fish Waste 

2. Fish Oil 

3. Fresh Broken Fillets 

4. Frozen Broken Fillets 

5. Fish Meal 

C. Farming Factors 

1. Fingerlings, Fish Feed, Nutrients, Lime 

D. Other Surrogate Values 

1. Labor 

2. Salt 

3. STPP, CO Gas, PE Bags, Cartons, Tape, 

Label, Plastic Sheet, Banding, Diesel, 

Coal 

4. Brokerage & Handling 

COMMENT III: ZEROING 

Company-Specific Issues 

COMMENT IV: VINH HOAN 

A. Fish Consumption 

B. Revocation 

C. Farming Water 

COMMENT V: CONSIDERATION OF VINH 

QUANG AS A VOLUNTARY 

RESPONDENT 

COMMENT VI: SOUTH VINA SEPARATE 

RATE CERTIFICATION 

[FR Doc. 2012–6201 Filed 3–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–929] 

Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Amended Final Results of the First 

Administrative Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

DATES: Effective Date: March 14, 2012. 

SUMMARY: On September 13, 2011, the 

Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) published the final 

results of the antidumping duty 

administrative review of small diameter 

graphite electrodes (‘‘SDGE’’) from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), 

covering the period August 21, 2008, 

through January 31, 2010.1 We are 

amending our Final Results to correct 

certain ministerial errors made in the 

calculation of the antidumping duty 

margins for Fushun Jinly Petrochemical 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fushun Jinly’’); 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Beijing Fangda’’), Fangda Carbon New 

Material Co., Ltd. (‘‘Fangda Carbon’’), 

Fushun Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘‘Fushun 

Carbon’’), and Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Hefei’’); and Xinghe County Muzi Co., 

Ltd. (‘‘Muzi’’) pursuant to section 751(h) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(‘‘the Act’’), and 19 CFR 351.224(e). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lindsey Novom or Frances Veith, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 8, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5256 or (202) 482– 

4295, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 13, 2011, the 

Department published its affirmative 

final results in this proceeding.2 On 

September 19, 2011, Fushun Jinly and 

Beijing Fangda, Chengdu Rongguang 

Carbon Co., Ltd. (‘‘Rongguang’’), Fangda 

Carbon, Fushun Carbon, and Hefei 

(collectively ‘‘the Fangda Group’’), 

mandatory respondents, submitted 

ministerial error allegations and 

requested, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.224(c), that the Department correct 

the alleged ministerial errors in the 

calculation of Fushun Jinly and the 

Fangda Group’s dumping margins. 

Muzi, a separate rate company, also 

submitted ministerial error allegations 

on September 19, 2011. SGL Carbon 

LLC and Superior Graphite Co. 

(‘‘Petitioners’’) submitted rebuttal 

comments on September 23, 2011. 

Before the Department could take action 

on the alleged ministerial errors, 

Petitioners filed a summons and 

complaint with the U.S. Court of 

International Trade (‘‘CIT’’) challenging 

the Final Results, which vested the CIT 

with jurisdiction over the administrative 

proceeding. On February 22, 2012, the 

CIT granted the Department leave to 

publish these amended final results to 

correct certain ministerial errors.3

Ministerial Errors 

A ministerial error as defined in 

section 751(h) of the Act includes 

‘‘errors in addition, subtraction, or other 

arithmetic function, clerical error 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

type of unintentional error which the 

administering authority considers 

ministerial.’’ 4

After analyzing all interested party 

comments and rebuttals, we have 

determined, in accordance with section 

751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), 

that we made certain ministerial errors 

in our calculations for the Final Results. 

For a detailed discussion of these 

ministerial errors, as well as the 

Department’s analysis of the errors and 

allegations, see the Memorandum to the 

File, ‘‘First Administrative Review of 

the Antidumping Duty Order on Small 

Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the 

People’s Republic of China: Analysis of 

Ministerial Error Allegations,’’ dated 

concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Ministerial Error Memo’’). 

Additionally, in the Final Results, we 

determined that Muzi qualified for a 

separate rate.5 Because the cash deposit 

rate for Muzi was based on the 

calculated rate of the mandatory 

respondents, Fushun Jinly and the 

Fangda Group, and the margins for both 

companies have changed since the Final 

Results, the separate rate has changed as 

well.6 Finally, we have corrected a 

misspelling of Muzi’s full name. The 

amended weighted-average dumping 

margins are as follows: 

SDGEs from the PRC 

Exporters Percent 

margin 

Beijing Fangda Carbon Tech Co., 

Ltd., Fangda Carbon New Material Co., Ltd., Fushun Carbon 

Co., Ltd., Hefei Carbon Co., Ltd 1.10 

Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd .............................. 39.83 

Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., 

Ltd ............................................. 16.00 

Notification of Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as a final 

reminder to importers of their 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES