This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

60399

Vol. 65, No. 197

Wednesday, October 11, 2000

1 In the 1997/1998 administrative review, the

Department determined that the export operations

of Ningbo Nanlian and Huaiyin5 (Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5) were intertwined such that the two

companies appeared to be under common control

and should receive a single antidumping duty rate.

See proprietary versions of the Memorandum from

Edward C. Yang to Joseph A. Spetrini:

‘‘Relationship of Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods

Company, Ltd. and Huaiyin Foreign Trade

Corporation (5)’’, dated April 7, 2000; ‘‘Issues and

Decision Memo for the Administrative Review of

the Antidumping Duty Order on Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of

China—March 26, 1997 through August 31, 1998,’’

dated April 19, 2000. In light of this decision, the

Department required Ningbo Nanlian and Huaiyin5

to submit consolidated questionnaire responses in

the current administrative review.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–570–848]

Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and New Shipper Reviews,

Partial Rescission of the Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, and

Rescission of a New Shipper Review:

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From

the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce

(the Department) is conducting an

administrative review of the

antidumping duty order on freshwater

crawfish tail meat from the People’s

Republic of China (PRC) in response to

requests from the Crawfish Processors

Alliance (the petitioner); from

respondents Qingdao Rirong Foodstuff

Co. Ltd. (Qingdao Rirong), Lianyungang

Haiwang Aquatic Products Co., Ltd.

(Lianyungang Haiwang), Yancheng

Haiteng Aquatic Products & Foods, Co.,

Ltd. (Yancheng Haiteng), Huaiyin

Foreign Trade Corporation No. 30

(Huaiyin30), Yancheng Baolong

Biochemical Products Co., Ltd. (Baolong

Biochemical), and from importers Ocean

Harvest Wholesale Inc. (Ocean Harvest),

Maritime Trading Company (Maritime

Trading), and Boston Seafood

Processors (Boston Seafood). The period

of review is from September 1, 1998

through August 31, 1999.

The Department is also conducting

new shipper reviews in response to

requests from Fujian Pelagic Fishery

Group Company (Fujian Pelagic),

Yangzhou Lakebest Foods Co., Ltd.

(Yangzhou Lakebest), Suqian Foreign

Trade Co., Ltd. (Suqian FTC), Qingdao

Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd. (Qingdao

Zhengri), and Shantou SEZ Yangfeng

Marine Products Company (Shantou

SEZ). These reviews cover the period

September 1, 1998 through August 31,

1999. See the Background section of this

notice, below.

We preliminarily determine that sales

have been made below normal value

(NV). The preliminary results are listed

below in the section titled ‘‘Preliminary

Results of Review.’’ If these preliminary

results are adopted in our final results,

we will instruct the U.S. Customs

Service to assess antidumping duties

based on the difference between the

export price (EP) or constructed export

price (CEP), as applicable, and NV.

Interested parties are invited to

comment on these preliminary results.

(See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of

Review’’ section of this notice.)

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas Gilgunn, Elfi Blum, Jacky

Arrowsmith, or Maureen Flannery,

Import Administration, International

Trade Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, 14th Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington,

D.C. 20230; telephone: (202) 482–0648,

(202) 482–0197, (202) 482–4052, or

(202) 482–3020, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act) are to the provisions

effective January 1, 1995, the effective

date of the amendments made to the Act

by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In addition, unless otherwise indicated,

all citations to the Department’s

regulations are to 19 CFR part 351

(1999).

Background

The Department published in the

Federal Register an antidumping duty

order on freshwater crawfish tail meat

from the PRC on September 15, 1997 (62

FR 48218). On September 30, 1999, in

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

the Department received requests for

review from respondents Qingdao

Rirong, Lianyungang Haiwang,

Yancheng Haiteng, Huaiyin30, and

Baolong Biochemical. The Department

also received a request from Ocean

Harvest, which requested a review of

Yancheng Foreign Trade Corporation

(Yancheng FTC), and from Maritime

Trading and Boston Seafood Processors,

which each requested a review of

Huaiyin30. In addition, the Department

received a request from petitioner to

conduct an administrative review of

Qingdao Rirong, Lianyungang Haiwang,

Yancheng Haiteng, Huaiyin Foreign

Trade Corporation (Huaiyin FTC),

Huaiyin, Hua Yin, Huaiyin30, Baolong

Biochemical, China Everbright Trading

Company (China Everbright), Binzhou

Prefecture Foodstuffs Import & Export

Corp. (Binzhou Foodstuffs), Yancheng

FTC, Jiangsu Cereals, Oils & Foodstuff

Import & Export Corp. (Jiangsu Cereals),

Yancheng Baolong Aquatic Foods Co.,

Ltd. (Baolong Aquatic), Huaiyin Ningtai

Fisheries Co., Ltd. (Huaiyin Ningtai),

Nantong Delu Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.

(Nantong Delu), Zhenfeng Foodstuff

Company (Zhenfeng Foodstuff),

Weishan Hongfa Lake Foodstuff Co.,

Ltd. (Weishan Hongfa), Ever Concord,

Hua Yin Foreign Trading (Hua Yin FT),

Huaiyin Foreign Trading (Huaiyin FT),

Lianyungang Hailong Aquatic Product

(Lianyungang Hailong), Qifaco, Seatrade

International, Weishan Jinmuan

Foodstuff (Weishan Jinmuan), Welly

Shipping, aka Kenwa Shipping (Welly

Shipping), Yancheng Foreign Trading,

Jiangsu Baolong Group (Baolong Group),

Asia-Europe, Jiangsu Yancheng Aquatic

Products Freezing Plant (Yancheng

Aquatic), and Yupeng Fishery. In

addition, the petitioner requested an

administrative review of Ningbo

Nanlian Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. (Ningbo

Nanlian) and Huaiyin Foreign Trade

Corporation (No. 5) (Huaiyin5).1

On October 28, 1999, the Department

initiated an antidumping administrative

review of the following companies:

Ningbo Nanlian, Huaiyin5, Qingdao

Rirong, Lianyungang Haiwang,

Yancheng Haiteng, Huaiyin FTC,

Huaiyin, Hua Yin, Huaiyin30, Baolong

Biochemical, China Everbright, Binzhou

Foodstuffs, Yancheng FTC, Jiangsu

60400 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Notices

Cereals, Baolong Aquatic, Huaiyin

Ningtai, Nantong Delu, Zhenfeng

Foodstuff, Weishan Hongfa, Ever

Concord, Hua Yin FT, Huaiyin FT,

Lianyungang Hailong, Qifaco, Seatrade

International, Weishan Jinmuan, Welly

Shipping, Yancheng Foreign Trading,

Baolong Group, Asia-Europe, Yancheng

Aquatic, and Yupeng Fishery. See

Initiation of Antidumping and

Countervailing Duty Administrative

Reviews and Requests for Revocation in

Part, 64 FR 60161 (November 4, 1999).

This administrative review covers the

period September 1, 1998 through

August 31, 1999.

On September 19, 1999, the

Department received a request from

Yixing Ban Chan Foods, and on

September 30, 1999, the Department

received requests from Fujian Pelagic,

Yangzhou Lakebest, Suqian FTC,

Qingdao Zhengri, and Shantou SEZ for

new shipper reviews of the antidumping

duty order on freshwater crawfish tail

meat from the PRC. These requests were

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

the Act and section 351.214(b) of the

Department’s regulations, which state

that, if the Department receives a

request for review from an exporter or

producer of the subject merchandise

stating that it did not export the

merchandise to the United States during

the period covered by the original

investigation (the POI) and that such

exporter or producer is not affiliated

with any exporter or producer who

exported the subject merchandise

during that period, the Department shall

conduct a new shipper review to

establish an individual weightedaverage dumping margin for such

exporter or producer, if the Department

has not previously established such a

margin for the exporter or producer.

The regulations require that the

exporter or producer shall include in its

request, with appropriate certifications:

(i) The date on which the merchandise

was first entered, or withdrawn from

warehouse, for consumption, or, if it

cannot certify as to the date of first

entry, the date on which it first shipped

the merchandise for export to the

United States, or if the merchandise has

not yet been shipped or entered, the

date of sale; (ii) a list of the firms with

which it is affiliated; (iii) a statement

from such exporter or producer, and

from each affiliated firm, that it did not,

under its current or a former name,

export the merchandise during the POI;

and (iv) in an antidumping proceeding

involving inputs from a non-marketeconomy (NME) country, a certification

that the export activities of such

exporter or producer are not controlled

by the central government. See 19 CFR

351.214(b)(ii) and (iii).

The requests received from Yixing

Ban Chang, Fujian Pelagic, Yangzhou

Lakebest, Suqian FTC, Qingdao Zhengri,

and Shantou SEZ were accompanied by

information and certifications

establishing the effective date on which

each company first shipped and entered

freshwater crawfish tail meat for

consumption in the United States, the

volume of each shipment, and the date

of first sale to an unaffiliated customer

in the United States. Each of these five

companies certified that it was not

affiliated with any company which

exported freshwater crawfish tail meat

from the PRC during the POI. In

addition, Yixing Ban Chang, Fujian

Pelagic, Yangzhou Lakebest, Suqian

FTC, Qingdao Zhengri, and Shantou

SEZ each certified that its export

activities are not controlled by the

central government. On November 1,

1999, the Department initiated these

new shipper reviews covering the

period September 1, 1998 through

August 31, 1999. See Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s

Republic of China: Initiation of NewShipper Antidumping Administrative

Review, 64 FR 61833 (November 15,

1999). On February 25, 2000, Yixing

Ban Chang withdrew its request for

review, in accordance with 19 CFR

351.214 (f)(1). On August 4, 2000, the

Department published the rescission of

the new shipper review of Yixing Ban

Chang. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail

Meat From the People’s Republic of

China: Notice of Partial Rescission of

New Shipper Antidumping Duty Review,

65 FR 47958 (August 4, 2000).

On May 22, 2000 and May 24, 2000,

Fujian Pelagic, Qingdao Zhengri,

Shantou SEZ, Suqian FTC, and

Yangzhou Lakebest, in accordance with

19 CFR 351.214(j)(3), agreed to waive

the new shipper time limits applicable

to their reviews so that the Department

might conduct their new shipper

reviews concurrently with the 1998/99

administrative review of crawfish tail

meat from the PRC. On August 2, 2000,

we aligned the deadlines for the new

shipper reviews of Fujian Pelagic,

Qingdao Zhengri, Shantou SEZ, Suqian

FTC, and Yangzhou Lakebest with the

deadlines of the 1998/99 administrative

review. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail

Meat From the People’s Republic of

China: Postponement of Time Limits for

Preliminary Results of New Shipper

Antidumping Reviews, 65 FR 48466

(August 8, 2000).

Due to extraordinarily complicated

issues in this case, on May 11, 2000 the

Department extended the deadline for

completion of the preliminary results of

the administrative review to September

29, 2000. See Notice of Extension of

Time Limits for Preliminary Results of

Administrative Antidumping Review:

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 33297

(May 23, 2000).

Scope of Reviews

The product covered by these reviews

is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all

its forms (whether washed or with fat

on, whether purged or unpurged),

grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh,

or chilled; and regardless of how it is

packed, preserved, or prepared.

Excluded from the scope of the order are

live crawfish and other whole crawfish,

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled.

Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of

any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater

crawfish tail meat is currently

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTS)

under item numbers 0306.19.00.10 and

0306.29.00.00. The HTS subheadings

are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes only. The written

description of the scope of this order is

dispositive.

Partial Rescission of Administrative

Review

On February 1, 2000, petitioner

withdrew its request for review for

Everbright, Binzhou Foodstuffs, Jiangsu

Cereals, Baolong Aquatic, Huaiyin

Ningtai, Nantong Delu, Ever Concord,

Lianyungang Hailong, Qifaco, Seatrade

International, Weishan Jinmuan, Welly

Shipping, and Yancheng Foreign

Trading. The Department’s regulations

at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) provide that a

party may withdraw its request for

review within 90 days of the date of

publication of the notice of initiation of

the requested review. The petitioner

withdrew its request for review of these

companies within the 90-day period.

Therefore, because there were no other

requests for review of these companies,

we are rescinding our review of China

Everbright, Binzhou Foodstuffs, Jiangsu

Cereals, Baolong Aquatic, Huaiyin

Ningtai, Nantong Delu, Ever Concord,

Lianyungang Hailong, Qifaco, Seatrade

International, Weishan Jinmuan, Welly

Shipping, and Yancheng Foreign

Trading. We note that although

petitioner withdrew its request for

‘‘Yancheng Foreign Trading,’’ it did not

withdraw its request for review of

‘‘Yancheng FTC.’’ Both petitioner and

Ocean Harvest requested a review of

Yancheng FTC, and we are continuing

that review.

On March 14, 2000, Qingdao Rirong

informed the Department that it had no

shipments of the subject merchandise to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Notices 60401

the United States during the period of

review (POR). On June 1, 2000,

Zhenfeng Foodstuff informed the

Department that it had no shipments of

the subject merchandise to the United

States during the period of review

(POR). We also determined that

Weishan Hongfa and Yancheng Aquatic

made no exports of subject merchandise

during the POR. We also received

section D responses from Weishan

Hongfa submitted by Baolong

Biochemical for its review, and from

Yancheng Aquatic, submitted by

Yancheng Haiteng for its review. These

responses stated, respectively, that

Weishan Hongfa and Yancheng Aquatic

did not export to the United States

during the POR. We independently

confirmed that Qingdao Rirong,

Zhenfeng Foodstuff, Weishan Hongfa

and Yancheng Aquatic had no

shipments during the POR. The

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR

351.213(d)(3) provide that the

Department may rescind a review with

respect to a company if that company

made no exports of subject merchandise

during the POR. Therefore, in

accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of

the Department’s regulations, we are

finally rescinding our review of Qingdao

Rirong, Zhenfeng Foodstuff, Weishan

Hongfa, and Yancheng Aquatic.

Based on information obtained at

verification, we determine that Baolong

Biochemical did not make any sales to

the United States during the POR. (See

Verification section below and

memorandum from Joseph A. Spetrini

to Troy H. Cribb ‘‘Yancheng Baolong

Biochemical Products (Baolong

Biochemical): Intent to Rescind

Administrative Review’’ dated

September 29, 2000 (Baolong

Biochemical Rescission Memo).) The

Department’s regulations at 19 CFR

351.213(d)(3) provide that the

Department may rescind a review with

respect to a company if that company

made no exports of subject merchandise

during the POR. Therefore, in

accordance with section 351.213(d)(3) of

the Department’s regulations, we are

preliminarily rescinding our review of

Baolong Biochemical.

The petitioner requested a review for

Huaiyin, Hua Yin, Hua Yin FT, and

Huaiyin FT. The Department had no

addresses or other identifying

information regarding these four

companies. We contacted petitioner and

requested addresses, but petitioner was

unable to furnish addresses for these

names. These names appear to be

variant or erroneous spellings of

exporters whose names include the

word ‘‘Huaiyin.’’ The Department’s

regulations at 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3)

provide that the Department may

rescind a review with respect to a

company if that company made no

exports of subject merchandise during

the POR. Therefore, in accordance with

section 351.213(d)(3) of the

Department’s regulations, we are

preliminarily rescinding our review of

Huaiyin, Hua Yin, Hua Yin FT, and

Huaiyin FT. We preliminarily determine

that subject merchandise entering the

United States under one of these names

is covered by this review only to the

extent that the exporter is in fact

Huaiyin FTC, Huaiyin5, or Huaiyin30,

which are separately covered by this

review.

Application of Facts Available

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides

that if any interested party: (A)

Withholds information that has been

requested by the Department; (B) fails to

provide such information in a timely

manner or in the form or manner

requested; (C) significantly impedes an

antidumping investigation; or (D)

provides such information but the

information cannot be verified, the

Department shall use the facts otherwise

available in reaching the applicable

determination under this title. See

Dynamic Random Access Memory

Semiconductors of One Megabit or

Above From the Republic of Korea:

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review and Notice

of Intent Not To Revoke Order in Part,

64 FR 30481 (June 8, 1999); Silicon

Metal From The People’s Republic of

China; Final Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

37850 (July 14, 1998); Silicon Metal

From The People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 63 FR

11654 (March 10, 1998).

Huaiyin FTC, Yupeng Fishery,

Baolong Aquatic, and Asia Europe failed

to respond to the Department’s

antidumping questionnaire. In addition,

Lianyungang Haiwang failed to respond

to the Department’s supplemental

questionnaire. As a result, we were

unable to obtain the information

necessary to conduct a review.

Therefore, in accordance with section

776(a)(2)(A) of the Act, we are applying

facts available to Huaiyin FTC, Yupeng

Fishery, Lianyungang Haiwang, Baolong

Aquatic, and Asia Europe. Since we

have also determined that Baolong

Group was the same company as

Baolong Aquatic and Asia Europe

during the POR (see Verification section

below and the Baolong Biochemical

Rescission Memo), we are applying

adverse facts available to the Baolong

Group.

It is the Department’s policy that a

respondent’s eligibility for separate rates

must be evaluated in each

administrative review and must be

based on respondent’s claim for a

separate rate in each administrative

review, regardless of any separate rate

the respondent received in the past. See

Manganese Metal from the People’s

Republic of China, Final Results and

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 63 FR 12441

(March 13, 1998). However, for

companies for which no questionnaire

response is on the record, we are unable

to evaluate whether a separate rate

would be appropriate. In the instant

administrative review, Huaiyin FTC,

Asia-Europe, Baolong Aquatic (aka

Baolong Group), Yupeng Fishery, and

Lianyungang Haiwang failed to provide

complete and accurate responses which

could be used in the determination of

separate rates. Therefore, consistent

with Department practice, we are

treating these companies, together with

all other PRC companies that have not

established that they are entitled to

separate rates, as a single enterprise

subject to government control.

Furthermore, we have determined the

rate to be applied to this single

enterprise, a PRC-wide rate based on

adverse facts available, in accordance

with section 776(b) of the Act.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides

that the Department may apply adverse

facts available to a respondent when

that respondent fails to cooperate to the

best of its ability. Section 776(b) of the

Act states that adverse facts available

may include information derived from

the petition, the final determination, a

previous administrative review, or other

information placed on the record. As

adverse facts available, we are using the

rate for Huaiyin 30, 240.34 percent, the

highest rate in this segment of the

proceeding, which is also the highest

rate in any segment of the proceeding.

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that

when the Department relies on

secondary information, the Department

shall, to the extent practicable,

corroborate that information with

independent sources reasonably at the

Department’s disposal. The Statement of

Administrative Action (SAA)

accompanying the URAA clarifies that

the petition is secondary information.

See SAA, H.R. Doc. 103–316 at 870

(1994). The SAA also clarifies that

‘‘corroborate’’ means to determine

whether the information used has

probative value. Id. In this instance, we

are using an actual calculated rate from

a company covered in this review. Thus,

we consider this rate to have probative

value. Accordingly, pursuant to section

60402 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Notices

2The Petitioner also requested duty absorption

reviews for a number of companies for which we

are rescinding the administrative review. As such,

the petitioner’s request for duty absorption reviews

with regard to these companies is moot and we do

not address them here.

776(b) of the Act, we are applying the

rate of 240.34 percent to Huaiyin FTC,

Baolong Aquatic, Asia-Europe, the

Baolong Group, Yupeng Fishery, and

Lianyungang Haiwang, as well as for the

PRC entity. See Determination of

Adverse Facts Available in the

Administrative Review of Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s

Republic of China (Adverse Facts

Available Memorandum), dated

September 29, 2000.

We were unable to verify a significant

portion of Huaiyin30’s questionnaire

responses. Specifically, we found that

(1) Huaiyin30 failed to report a factory

which supplied it subject merchandise

sold during the POR; and (2) we could

not verify the significant parts of

Huaiyin30’s reported factors of

production for another factory.

Therefore, consistent with sections 776

(a) of the Act, we have determined to

assign an antidumping margin based on

partial facts available to Huaiyin30. See

the proprietary memorandum,

‘‘Determination of Partial Facts

Available for Huaiyin Foreign Trade

Corporation (30) in the Administrative

Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail

Meat from the People’s Republic of

China,’’ dated September 29, 2000.

Duty Absorption

On December 15, 1999, the petitioners

requested that the Department

determine whether antidumping duties

had been absorbed during the POR for

freshwater crawfish tail meat from

Fujian Pelagic, Yangzhou Lakebest,

Suqian FTC, Qingdao Zhengri, and

Shantou SEZ in the new shipper

reviews, and for Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5, Huaiyin30, Lianyungang

Haiwang, Nantong Delu, Yancheng

Haiteng, Yancheng FTC, and Baolong

Biochemical in the administrative

review.2 Section 751(a)(4) of the Act

provides for the Department, if

requested, to determine during an

administrative review initiated two or

four years after publication of the order,

whether antidumping duties have been

absorbed by a foreign producer or

exporter, if the subject merchandise is

sold in the United States through an

affiliated importer. In this case, Ningbo

Nanlian/Huaiyin5 and Yancheng

Haiteng sold to the United States

through an affiliated importer. In

addition, Yancheng FTC’s reported sales

included sales in which Yancheng FTC

acted as the exporter of record for sales

made by Nantong Delu to Ocean

Harvest, its affiliated U.S. importer.

Because the order underlying this

review was issued in 1997, and this

review was initiated in 1999, we are

making a duty absorption determination

in this segment of the proceeding.

Prior to these preliminary results, we

requested that Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5, and Yancheng Haiteng place

on the record evidence that unaffiliated

purchasers will ultimately pay the

antidumping duties to be assessed on

entries during the review period for the

respective class or kind of merchandise,

and that Yancheng FTC and Ocean

Harvest place such evidence on the

record with respect to Nantong Delu.

Nantong Delu and Ocean Harvest stated

that we can ascertain that Ocean Harvest

passed the cost of the estimated duties

on to its customers by comparing Ocean

Harvest’s price to its customers with the

entered value of the subject

merchandise. None of these companies

provided any evidence, nor is there any

evidence on the record, that the

unaffiliated purchasers of subject

merchandise sold by Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5, Yancheng Haiteng, or

Nantong Delu will ultimately pay the

antidumping duties to be assessed on

entries during the review period.

Accordingly, based on the record, we

cannot conclude that the unaffiliated

purchasers in the United States will pay

the ultimately assessed duties.

Therefore, we preliminarily find that for

Ningbo Nanlian/Huaiyin5 and

Yancheng Haiteng, antidumping duties

have been absorbed by the affiliated

importer during the POR. In addition,

we preliminarily find that antidumping

duties have been absorbed by the Ocean

Harvest for sales in which Yancheng

FTC acted as the exporter for Nantong

Delu during the POR. (See

‘‘Memorandum to the File from Thomas

Gilgunn; Analysis for the Preliminary

Results of Administrative Review of

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the

People’s Republic of China: Ningbo

Nanlian Frozen Foods Co., Ltd./Huaiyin

Foreign Trade Corp. (5),’’ dated

September 29, 2000, ‘‘Memorandum to

the File from Sarah Ellerman; Analysis

for the Preliminary Results of

Administrative Review of Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s

Republic of China: Yancheng Haiteng

Aquatic Products and Foods Co., Ltd.,’’

dated September 29, 2000), and

‘‘Memorandum to the File from Elfi

Blum-Page; Analysis for the Preliminary

Results of Administrative Review of

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the

People’s Republic of China: Yancheng

Foreign Trade Corporation,’’ dated

September 29, 2000.)

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we conducted a verification of the

responses of the following companies:

Huaiyin30, Ningbo Nanlian/Huaiyin5,

Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng FTC,

Baolong Biochemical, Fujian Pelagic,

Suqian FTC, Yangzhou Lakebest,

Shantou SEZ, and Qingdao Zhengri.

These include all companies for which

we are conducting a new shipper

review. We used standard verification

procedures, including on-site inspection

of the manufacturers’ facilities and the

examination of relevant sales and

financial records. Our verification

results are outlined in the public

versions of the verification reports.

New Shippers

Based on the questionnaire responses

received from Fujian Pelagic, Suqian

FTC, Yangzhou Lakebest, Shantou SEZ,

and Qingdao Zhengri, and our

verification thereof, we preliminarily

determine that these companies have

met the requirements to qualify as new

shippers during the POR. We have

determined that they made their first

sale or shipment of subject merchandise

to the United States during the POR,

that these sales were bona fide sales

made in normal commercial quantities,

and that these companies were not

affiliated with any exporter or producer

that previously shipped to the United

States.

Separate Rates

Ningbo Nanlian/Huaiyin5, Huaiyin30,

Yancheng Haiteng, Yancheng FTC,

Fujian Pelagic, Yangzhou Lakebest,

Suqian FTC, Qingdao Zhengri, and

Shantou SEZ have requested separate,

company-specific rates. In their

questionnaire responses, the above

companies state that they are

independent legal entities. Ningbo

Nanlian/Huaiyin5, Qingdao Zhengri,

Yangzhou Lakebest, Shantou SEZ, and

Yancheng Haiteng have furthermore

reported they are PRC-foreign joint

ventures.

To establish whether a company

operating in an NME country is

sufficiently independent to be entitled

to a separate rate, the Department

analyzes each exporting entity under the

test established in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Sparklers from the People’s

Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6,

1991), as amplified by the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Notices 60403

(May 2, 1994). Under this policy,

exporters in NMEs are entitled to

separate, company-specific margins

when they can demonstrate an absence

of government control, both in law and

in fact, with respect to export activities.

Evidence supporting, though not

requiring, a finding of de jure absence

of government control over export

activities includes: (1) An absence of

restrictive stipulations associated with

an individual exporter’s business and

export licenses; (2) any legislative

enactments decentralizing control of

companies; and (3) any other formal

measures by the government

decentralizing control of companies. De

facto absence of government control

over exports is based on four factors: (1)

Whether each exporter sets its own

export prices independently of the

government and without the approval of

a government authority; (2) whether

each exporter retains the proceeds from

its sales and makes independent

decisions regarding the disposition of

profits or financing of losses; (3)

whether each exporter has the authority

to negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; and (4) whether each

exporter has autonomy from the

government regarding the selection of

management.

De Jure Control

With respect to the absence of de jure

government control over the export

activities of all the companies reviewed,

evidence on the record indicates that

Ningbo Nanlian/Huaiyin5, Yancheng

Haiteng, Huaiyin30, Yancheng FTC,

Fujian Pelagic, Yangzhou Lakebest,

Suqian FTC, Qingdao Zhengri, and

Shantou SEZ are not controlled by the

government. All of the above companies

submitted evidence of their legal right to

set prices independent of all

government oversight. The business

licenses of every company indicates that

each is permitted to engage in the

exportation of crawfish. We find no

evidence of de jure government control

restricting any of the reviewed

companies from the exportation of

crawfish. See ‘‘Separate Rate Analysis in

the d Administrative Review and New

Shipper Review of Freshwater Crawfish

Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of

China,’’ dated September 29, 2000

(Separate Rates Memorandum), which

is on file in the Central Records Unit

(room B099 of the Main Commerce

Building).

No export quotas apply to crawfish.

Prior verifications have confirmed that

there are no commodity specific export

licenses required and no quotas for the

seafood category ‘‘Other,’’ which

includes crawfish, in China’s Tariff and

Non-Tariff Handbook for 1996. In

addition, we have previously confirmed

that crawfish is not on the list of

commodities with planned quotas in the

1992 PRC Ministry of Foreign Trade and

Economic Cooperation document

entitled Temporary Provisions for

Administration of Export Commodities.

(See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat

From The People’s Republic of China;

Preliminary Results of New Shipper

Review, 64 FR 8543 (February 22, 1999)

and Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat

From the People’s Republic of China;

Final Results of New Shipper Review, 64

FR 27961 (May 24, 1999) (Ningbo New

Shipper Review).)

The following laws, which have been

placed on the record of this review,

indicate a lack of de jure government

control over companies owned by ‘‘all

the people’’ and that control over these

enterprises has been transferred from

the government to the enterprises

themselves. The Administrative

Regulations of the People’s Republic of

China for Controlling the Registration of

Enterprises as Legal Persons (Legal

Persons Law), issued on July 13, 1988 by

the State Administration for Industry

and Commerce of the PRC and placed

on the record of these reviews, provide

that, to qualify as legal persons,

companies must have the ‘‘ability to

bear civil liability independently’’ and

the right to control and manage their

businesses. These regulations also state

that as an independent legal entity, a

company is responsible for its own

profits and losses. (See Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than

Fair Value: Manganese Metal from the

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 56046

(November 6, 1995) (Manganese Metal).

The People’s Republic of China All

People’s Ownership Business Law

(Company Law), also on the record of

these reviews, states that a foreign

company shall bear civil responsibility

for the operational activities of its

branch organization in China. At

verification, we saw that business

licenses for Ningbo Nanlian/Huaiyin5,

Yancheng Haiteng, Huaiyin5,

Huaiyin30, Yancheng FTC, Fujian

Pelagic, Yangzhou Lakebest, Suqian

FTC, Qingdao Zhengri, and Shantou

SEZ were established in accordance

with these laws.

Yancheng Haiteng, Yangzhou

Lakebest, Yancheng FTC, and Shantou

SEZ provided copies of the Foreign

Trade Law, which identifies the rights

and responsibilities of business

enterprises with foreign investment,

grants autonomy to foreign trade

operators in management decisions, and

establishes the foreign trade operator’s

accountability for profits and losses.

Therefore, with respect to the absence of

de jure control over export activity, we

determine that these firms are

independent legal entities. Yancheng

Haiteng placed on the record of this

review The Sino-Foreign Equity Joint

Venture Law of the PRC, which grants

export rights to Sino-foreign equity joint

venture companies without additional

approval from a government entity.

Qingdao Zhengri, Yancheng Haiteng,

Ningbo Nanlian/Huaiyin5, Yangzhou

Lakebest and Shantou SEZ also cited

this law in their responses.

De Facto Control

With respect to the absence of de

facto control over export activities, the

information presented indicates that the

management of Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5, Yancheng Haiteng,

Huaiyin30, Yancheng FTC, Fujian

Pelagic, Yangzhou Lakebest, Suqian

FTC, Qingdao Zhengri, and Shantou

SEZ are responsible for all decisions

such as the determination of export

prices, profit distribution, marketing

strategy, and contract negotiations. Our

analysis indicates that there is no

government involvement in the daily

operations or the selection of

management for any of these companies.

In addition, we have found that these

respondents’ pricing and export strategy

decisions are not subject to any outside

entity’s review or approval, and that

there are no governmental policy

directives that affect these decisions.

There are no restrictions on the use of

respondent’s revenues of profits,

including export earnings. Each

company’s general manager has the

right to negotiate and enter into

contracts, and may delegate this

authority to employees within the

company. There is no evidence that this

authority is subject any level of

governmental approval. Each company

has stated that its management is

selected by its board of directors and or

its employees and that there is no

government involvement in the

selection process. Lastly, decisions

made by respondents concerning

purchases of subject merchandise from

other suppliers are not subject to

government approval. For more

information, see Separate Rates

Memorandum. Consequently, because

evidence on the record indicates an

absence of government control, both in

law and in fact, over their export

activities, we preliminarily determine

that these exporters are entitled to

separate rates. For further discussion of

the Department’s preliminary

determination that these exporters are

entitled to separate rates, see Separate

Rate Memorandum.

60404 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Notices

Normal Value Comparisons

To determine whether respondents’

sales of the subject merchandise to the

United States were made at prices below

NV, we compared their United States

prices to NV, as described in the

‘‘United States Price’’ and ‘‘Normal

Value’’ sections of this notice.

United States Price

For Ningbo Nanlian/Huaiyin5 and

Yancheng Haiteng, in part, and for

Yancheng FTC’s sales made on behalf of

Nantong Delu, we based United States

price on CEP in accordance with section

772(b) of the Act, because the first sales

to unaffiliated purchasers were made

after importation. We calculated CEP

based on packed prices from the U.S.

affiliate’s warehouse to the first

unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We made the following

deductions from the starting price (gross

unit price), where applicable: foreign

inland freight, international (ocean)

freight, U.S. customs duty, brokerage

and handling expenses, the affiliated

purchaser’s U.S. credit expenses, and

the affiliated purchaser’s indirect selling

expenses. See sections 772(c) and (d) of

the Act. Because U.S. customs duty,

brokerage and handling expenses, credit

expenses, and indirect selling expenses,

are market-economy costs incurred in

U.S. dollars, we used actual costs rather

than surrogate values for these

deductions to gross unit price.

For Huaiyin30, Yancheng FTC, Fujian

Pelagic, Yangzhou Lakebest, Suqian

FTC, Qingdao Zhengri, Shantou SEZ,

and, in part, for Ningbo Nalian/

Huaiyin5 and Yancheng Haiteng, we

based United States price on EP in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because the first sales to

unaffiliated purchasers were made prior

to importation, and CEP was not

otherwise warranted by the facts on the

record. We calculated EP based on

packed prices from the exporter to the

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United

States. We deducted foreign inland

freight and brokerage and handling

expenses in the home market from the

starting price (gross unit price) in

accordance with Section 772(c) of the

Act.

The Department has also

preliminarily determined that Fujian

Pelagic’s sales to Pacific Coast Fishery

Corporation (Pacific Coast) should be

treated as EP sales. For more

information, see the business

proprietary version of the memorandum

entitled ‘‘New-Shipper Review of

Freshwater Crawfish Tail meat from the

People’s Republic of China (PRC) (A–

570–848): Sales Verification Report for

Fujian Pelagic Fishery Group Company

(Fujian Pelagic Group),’’ dated

September 29, 2000.

Normal Value

For companies located in NME

countries, section 773(c)(1) of the Act

provides that the Department shall

determine NV using a factors-ofproduction methodology if (1) the

merchandise is exported from an NME

country, and (2) available information

does not permit the calculation of NV

using home-market prices, third-country

prices, or constructed value under

section 773(a) of the Act.

In every case conducted by the

Department involving the PRC, the PRC

has been treated as an NME country.

Pursuant to 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. None of the

companies contested such treatment in

these reviews. Accordingly, we have

applied surrogate values to the factors of

production to determine NV.

We calculated NV based on factors of

production in accordance with section

773(c)(4) of the Act and section

351.408(c) of our regulations. Consistent

with the original investigation and the

first administrative review of this order,

we determined that India (1) is

comparable to the PRC in level of

economic development, and (2) is a

significant producer of comparable

merchandise. With the exception of the

crawfish input, we valued the factors of

production using publicly available

information from India. For the crawfish

input, we used Spanish import statistics

for crawfish imported from Portugal. For

further discussion, see Memorandum

from The Crawfish Team, Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s

Republic of China: Factor Values

Memorandum, dated September 29,

2000 (Factor Values Memo). We used

import prices to value many factors. As

appropriate, we adjusted import prices

by adding freight expenses to make

them delivered prices.

We valued the factors of production

as follows:

• To value whole crawfish, we used

the average Spanish import price for

fresh (not frozen) crawfish imported

from Portugal. In order to factor out

seasonal fluctuations in the price of the

Spanish import data, we valued whole

crawfish using monthly data from the

POR.

We used the monthly Spanish import

price data for whole crawfish imported

from Portugal during the POR submitted

by the petitioner on September 18, 2000.

Petitioner stated that this information

was ‘‘updated data from the Spanish

Ministry of Customs’’ obtained through

Global Trade Information Services, Inc.

On September 19, 2000, Ningbo

Nanlian/Huaiyin5 stated that the

Department should not use the

petitioner’s data since that information

was obtained from a fee-based internet

service, and thus is not publicly

available. In addition, Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5 cited discrepancies between

the petitioner’s data and official Spanish

import data which Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5 submitted for one month. On

September 20, 2000, the Department

requested that Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5 submit Spanish import data

for all POR months to the record. (See

Memorandum to the File, Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat from the PRC:

Request for Monthly Spanish Import

Data for Whole Crawfish, dated

September 21, 2000.) Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5 did not submit the requested

information. Thus, we are using the

only monthly data on the value of the

whole crawfish that is available to us,

that petitioners submitted. Since the

factors of production were reported for

a period concurrent with our valuation

of the crawfish input, we did not adjust

these factor values for inflation. See the

Factor Values Memorandum for further

discussion.

To value the by-product of shells, we

used a free-on-board (FOB) factory price

quote for crab and shrimp shells from a

Canadian seller of crustacean shells.

(See Notice of Preliminary Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review and New Shipper Reviews,

Partial Rescission of the Antidumping

Administrative Review, and Rescission

of the New Shipper Review for

Yancheng Baolung Biochemical

Products, Co., Ltd.: Freshwater Crawfish

Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of

China, 64 FR 55236, October 12, 1999.)

We adjusted this price to reflect

deflation to the crawfish processing

season.

To value coal and electricity, we used

data reported as the average Indian

domestic prices within the categories of

‘‘Steam Coal for Industry’’ and

‘‘Electricity for Industry,’’ published in

the International Energy Agency’s

publication, Energy Prices and Taxes,

First Quarter, 2000. We adjusted the

cost of coal to include an amount for

transportation. For water, we relied

upon public information from the

October 1997 Second Water Utilities

Data Book: Asian and Pacific Region,

published by the Asian Development

Bank.

To achieve comparability of the

energy and water prices to the factors

reported for the crawfish processing

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Notices 60405

periods applicable for the companies

under review, we adjusted these factor

values using the Wholesale Price Index

(WPI) for India, as published in the

International Financial Statistics (IFS)

published by the International Monetary

Fund (IMF), to reflect inflation through

the applicable periods.

• To value plastic bags, cardboard

boxes and adhesive tape, we relied upon

Indian import data from the April 1998

through August 1998 issues of Monthly

Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India

(Monthly Statistics). We adjusted these

prices to reflect inflation to the crawfish

processing season. We adjusted the

values of packing materials to include

freight costs incurred between the

supplier and the factory, and we

deflated to the period of production. For

transportation distances used for the

calculation of freight expenses on raw

materials, we added to surrogate values

from India a surrogate freight cost using

the shorter of (a) the distances between

the closest PRC port and the factory, or

(b) the distance between the domestic

supplier and the factory. See Notice of

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Collated Roofing Nails

From the People’s Republic of China, 62

FR 51410 (October 1, 1997) (Roofing

Nails).

• To value factory overhead, selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A), and profit, we calculated

simple average rates using publicly

available financial statements of three

Indian seafood processing companies

submitted in the original investigation

for which more current data is now

available, and applied these rates to the

calculated cost of manufacture. See

Factor Values Memorandum.

• For labor, we used the PRC

regression-based wage rate at Import

Administration’s home page, Import

Library, Expected Wages of Selected

NME Countries, revised in May 2000.

See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/.

Because of the variability of wage rates

in countries with similar per capita

gross domestic products, section

351.408(c)(3) of the Department’s

regulations requires the use of a

regression-based wage rate. The source

of these wage rate data on the Import

Administration’s Web site is found in

the 1998 Year Book of Labour Statistics,

International Labour Office (Geneva:

1998), Chapter 5: Wages in

Manufacturing.

• We valued movement expenses as

follows:

To value truck freight expenses we

used the seventeen price quotes from six

different Indian trucking companies

which were used in the antidumping

investigation of Bulk Aspirin from the

People’s Republic of China, 65 FR 33805

(May 25, 2000). We adjusted the rates to

reflect inflation through the POR using

WPI for India in the IFS.

To value brokerage and handling in

the home market, we used information

reported in the antidumping

administrative review of Certain

Stainless Steel Wire Rod From India;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative and New Shipper

Reviews, 63 FR 48184 (September 9,

1998) (Stainless Steel Wire Rod from

India), and also used in the Freshwater

Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s

Republic of China: Final Results of

Administrative Antidumping Duty and

New Shipper Reviews, and Final

Rescission of New Shipper Review, 65

FR 20948 (April 19, 2000). We adjusted

the rates to reflect inflation through the

POR using WPI for India in the IFS.

We used the average of the foreign

brokerage and handling expenses

reported in the U.S. sales listing portion

of the public questionnaire response

submitted in the antidumping review of

Viraj Group, Ltd. in Stainless Steel Wire

Rod from India. Charges were reported

on a per metric ton basis. We adjusted

these values to reflect inflation to the

POR. For further discussion, see Factor

Values Memorandum.

To value ocean freight, we obtained

publicly available price quotes from Sea

Land Services for shipping frozen

crawfish tail meat from the PRC to Long

Beach, California in the United States.

See Factor Values Memorandum. To

adjust this rate to the POR, we used the

closest corresponding monthly WPI and

the WPI average for the POR.

Currency Conversion

We made currency conversions

pursuant to section 351.415 of the

Department’s regulations at the rates

certified by the Federal Reserve Bank.

(See http://ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/

index.html.)

Preliminary Results of Review

We preliminarily determine that the

following dumping margins exist:

Manufacturer/

Exporter Time period

Margin

(percent)

Ningbo Nanlian/

Huaiyin5 ............ 9/1/98–8/31/99 62.69

Yancheng Haiteng 9/1/98–8/31/99 79.86

Huaiyin30 .............. 9/1/98–8/31/99 240.34

Yancheng FTC ..... 9/1/98–8/31/99 166.93

Fujian Pelagic ....... 9/1/98–8/31/99 174.50

Yangzhou

Lakebest ............ 9/1/98–8/31/99 24.55

Suqian FTC .......... 9/1/98–8/31/99 19.97

Qingdao Zhengri ... 9/1/98–8/31/99 16.09

Shantou SEZ ........ 9/1/98–8/31/99 18.96

Manufacturer/

Exporter Time period

Margin

(percent)

PRC-Wide Rate .... 9/1/98–8/31/99 240.34

Parties to the proceeding may request

disclosure within 5 days of the date of

publication of this notice in accordance

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Any interested

party may request a hearing within 30

days of publication in accordance with

19 CFR 351.310(c). Any hearing would

normally be held 37 days after the

publication of this notice, or the first

workday thereafter, at the U.S.

Department of Commerce, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. Individuals who

wish to request a hearing must submit

a written request within 30 days of the

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register to the Assistant Secretary for

Import Administration, U.S. Department

of Commerce, Room 1870, 14th Street

and Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20230. Requests for a

public hearing should contain: (1) The

party’s name, address, and telephone

number; (2) the number of participants;

(3) the reason for attending; and (4) a list

of the issues to be discussed. Interested

parties may submit case briefs within 30

days of the date of publication of this

notice in accordance with 19 CFR

351.309(c)(2). Rebuttal briefs, which

must be limited to issues raised in the

case briefs, may be filed not later than

35 days after the date of publication.

Parties who submit arguments are

requested to submit with each argument

(1) a statement of the issue and (2) a

brief summary of the argument. If a

hearing is held, an interested party may

make an affirmative presentation only

on arguments included in that party’s

case brief and may make a rebuttal

presentation only on arguments

included in that party’s rebuttal brief.

Parties should confirm by telephone the

time, date, and place of the hearing 48

hours before the scheduled time.

The Department intends to issue the

final results of these administrative and

new shipper reviews, which will

include the results of its analysis of

issues raised in the briefs, within 120

days from the date of publication of

these preliminary results.

Upon completion of these

administrative and new shipper

reviews, the Department shall

determine, and the U.S. Customs

Service shall assess, antidumping duties

on all appropriate entries. Individual

differences between export price and

NV may vary from the percentages

stated above. The Department will issue

appraisement instructions directly to

60406 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 11, 2000 / Notices

the U.S. Customs Service upon

completion of this review. 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. For assessment

purposes, we intend to calculate

importer-specific assessment rates for

freshwater crawfish tail meat from the

PRC. For both EP and CEP sales, we will

divide the total dumping margins

(calculated as the difference between

NV and EP (or CEP)) for each importer

by the entered value of the merchandise.

Upon the completion of this review, we

will direct Customs to assess the

resulting ad valorem rates against the

entered value of each entry of the

subject merchandise by the importer

during the POR.

Furthermore, the following deposit

rates will be effective upon publication

of the final results of this administrative

review for all shipments of freshwater

crawfish tail meat from the PRC entered,

or withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the publication

date, as provided for by section

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

deposit rate for the reviewed firms will

be the rates indicated above; (2) for

previously-reviewed PRC and non-PRC

exporters with separate rates, the cash

deposit rate will be the companyspecific rate established for the most

recent period; (3) for all other PRC

exporters, the rate will be the PRC-wide

rate, which is 240.34 percent; and (4) for

all other non-PRC exporters of subject

merchandise from the PRC, the cash

deposit rate will be the rate applicable

to the PRC supplier of that exporter.

These deposit rates, when imposed,

shall remain in effect until publication

of the final results of the next

administrative review.

This notice also serves as a

preliminary reminder to importers of

their responsibility under 19 CFR

351.402(f) of the Department’s

regulations 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, these new

shipper reviews, and this notice are

published in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Act and sections

351.213, 351.214 and 351.221 of the

Department’s regulations.

Dated: September 29, 2000.

Troy H. Cribb,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 00–26073 Filed 10–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A–351–605]

Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice

From Brazil; Final Results of

Antidumping Duty Administrative

Review

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final results of

antidumping duty administrative

review.

SUMMARY: On June 6, 2000, the

Department of Commerce published the

preliminary results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on frozen concentrated orange juice

from Brazil. The merchandise covered

by this order is frozen concentrated

orange juice from Brazil. This review

covers the U.S. sales of three

manufacturers/exporters, Citrovita Agro

Industrial Ltda., Cambuhy MC

Industrial Ltda., and Cambuhy Citrus

Comercial e Exportadora. We have

collapsed these entities for purposes of

this proceeding and have calculated a

single margin for them. The period of

review is May 1, 1998, through April 30,

1999.

Based on our analysis of the

comments received, we have made

changes in the margin calculations.

Therefore, the final results differ from

the preliminary results. The final

weighted-average dumping margins for

the reviewed firms are listed below in

the section entitled ‘‘Final Results of

Review.’’

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 11, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irina

Itkin or Shawn Thompson, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0656 or (202) 482–

1776, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the Tariff Act of 1930, as

amended (the Act), are references to the

provisions effective January 1, 1995, the

effective date of the amendments made

to the Act by the Uruguay Round

Agreements Act (URAA). In addition,

unless otherwise indicated, all citations

to the Department of Commerce’s (the

Department’s) regulations are to 19 CFR

Part 351 (1999).

Background

This review covers three

manufacturers/exporters, Citrovita Agro

Industrial Ltda. (Citrovita), Cambuhy

MC Industrial Ltda. (Cambuhy), and

Cambuhy Citru Comercial e Exportadora

(Cambuhy Exportadora). Because these

companies met the requirements of 19

CFR 351.401(f), we have collapsed these

entities for purposes of this proceeding

and have calculated a single margin for

them. For further discussion, see the

‘‘Affiliated Producers’’ section of this

notice, below.

On June 6, 2000, the Department

published in the Federal Register the

preliminary results of administrative

review of the antidumping duty order

on frozen concentrated orange juice

(FCOJ) from Brazil. See Frozen

Concentrated Orange Juice from Brazil;

Preliminary Results of Antidumping

Duty Administrative Review, 65 FR

35892 (June 6, 2000).

We invited parties to comment on our

preliminary results of review. At the

request of Citrovita, we held a public

hearing on August 9, 2000. The

Department has conducted this

administrative review in accordance

with section 751 of the Act.

Scope of Review

The merchandise covered by this

review is frozen concentrated orange

juice from Brazil. The merchandise is

currently classifiable under item

2009.11.00 of the Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).

The HTSUS item number is provided

for convenience and for U.S. Customs

purposes. The Department’s written

description remains dispositive.

Period of Review

The period of review (POR) is May 1,

1998, through April 30, 1999.

Affiliated Producers

During the POR, a sister company to

Citrovita’s parent company purchased

another Brazilian producer of FCOJ and

that producer’s affiliated trading

company (i.e., Cambuhy and Cambuhy

Exportadora, respectively). We

determine that it is appropriate to treat

Citrovita and these affiliated parties as

a single entity. In accordance with 19

CFR 351.401(f), we have collapsed

Citrovita, Cambuhy, and Cambuhy

Exportadora for purposes of the final

results. However, because there is no