Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices 3

by-entry assessments, we will calculate

wherever possible an exporter/importerspecific assessment rate for each class or

kind of AFBs.

We will direct the Customs Service to

collect cash deposits of estimated

antidumping duties on all appropriate

entries in accordance with the

procedures discussed in the final results

of the reviews (62 FR 2081, 2082) and

as amended by this determination.

The amended deposit requirements

are effective for all shipments of the

subject merchandise entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice and shall

remain in effect until publication of the

final results of the next administrative

reviews.

This notice also serves as a final

reminder to importers of their

responsibility under 19 CFR 353.26 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 notice also serves as a reminder

to parties subject to administrative

protective orders (APO) of their

responsibility concerning the return or

destruction of proprietary information

disclosed under APO in accordance

with 19 CFR 353.34(d). Failure to

comply is a violation of the APO.

These administrative reviews and this

notice are in accordance with section

751(a)(1) of the Tariff Act (19 U.S.C.

1675(a)(1)) and 19 CFR 353.28.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7589 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P

[A–570–848]

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value:

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From

the People’s Republic of China

AGENCY: Import Administration,

International Trade Administration,

Department of Commerce.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 26, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rebecca Trainor, Elisabeth Urfer or

Maureen Flannery, Import

Administration, International Trade

Administration, U.S. Department of

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution

Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20230;

telephone: (202) 482–0666, (202) 482–

4052, or (202) 482–4733, respectively.

The Applicable Statute

Unless otherwise indicated, all

citations to the statute are references to

the provisions effective January 1, 1995,

the effective date of the amendments

made to the Tariff Act of 1930 (the Act)

by the Uruguay Rounds Agreements Act

(URAA).

Preliminary Determination

We determine preliminarily that

freshwater crawfish tail meat (crawfish

tail meat) from the People’s Republic of

China (PRC) is being, or is likely to be,

sold in the United States at less than fair

value (LTFV), as provided in section

733 of the Act. The estimated margins

are shown in the ‘‘Suspension of

Liquidation’’ section of this notice.

Case History

Since the initiation of this

investigation (61 FR 54154, October 17,

1996), the following events have

occurred:

On October 23, 1996, the Department

of Commerce (the Department) sent a

letter to the PRC’s Ministry of Foreign

Trade and Economic Cooperation

(MOFTEC) requesting the identification

of producers and exporters, and

information regarding the production

and sales of crawfish tail meat exported

to the United States. On November 15,

1996, the Department sent a separate

letter to the China Chamber of

Commerce for Import & Export of

Foodstuffs, Native Produce & Animal

By-Products (the China Chamber of

Commerce) requesting information

regarding exports of the subject

merchandise to the United States. We

received no response to our inquiries

from either MOFTEC or the China

Chamber of Commerce, except for the

March 10, 1997 letter noted below.

On November 4, 1996, the United

States International Trade Commission

(ITC) issued an affirmative preliminary

injury determination in this case (see

ITC Investigation No. 731–TA–752). The

ITC found that there is a reasonable

indication that an industry in the

United States is materially injured or

threatened with material injury by

reason of imports from the PRC of

crawfish tail meat.

The Department issued an

antidumping questionnaire to MOFTEC

on November 8, 1996, with instructions

to forward the document to all exporters

of crawfish tail meat, and to inform

these companies that they must respond

by the due dates. We also sent courtesy

copies of the antidumping questionnaire

to all identified companies for which we

had addresses.

The questionnaire is divided into four

sections. Section A requests general

information concerning a company’s

corporate structure and business

practices, the merchandise under

investigation that it sells, and the sales

of the merchandise in all of its markets.

Sections B and C request home market

sales listings and U.S. sales listings,

respectively. (Section B does not

normally apply in antidumping

proceedings involving the PRC.) Section

D requests information on the factors of

production of the subject merchandise.

On December 13, 1996 and December

19, 1996, fifteen PRC exporters

submitted their section A and section C

responses. On December 23, 1996, 23

PRC producer/supplier factories

submitted section D questionnaire

responses.

On December 23, 1996, we requested

that interested parties provide publicly

available published information for

valuing the factors of production and for

surrogate country selection. We received

comments from those interested parties

on January 17, 1997, and rebuttal

comments on January 27, 1997.

On January 10, 1997, we issued

supplemental questionnaires to five

respondents and we sent a deficiency

letter to three companies that had not

previously submitted section D

responses. We received section D

questionnaire responses from those

companies on January 17, 1997. On

January 23, 1997, we issued a

supplemental questionnaire to a sixth

respondent, Lianyungang Yupeng

Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. (Lianyungang

Yupeng). We issued a second

supplemental questionnaire on January

31, 1997 to the five largest respondents,

and we received their responses on

February 7, 1997.

On January 24, 1997, after receiving

complete questionnaire responses from

fifteen PRC crawfish exporters, we

determined that we would only be able

to analyze the responses of the six

largest PRC crawfish exporters to the

United States due to limited resources.

(See Respondent Selection section

below.)

On February 14, 1997, we postponed

the preliminary determination until not

later than March 19, 1997 (62 FR 6948),

because we determined this

investigation to be extraordinarily

complicated within the meaning of

section 733(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act.

On February 18, 1997, we granted an

additional period of time for interested

parties to submit factual information

and arguments with respect to the
4 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices

question of surrogate values. We

received comments on February 24,

1997 and rebuttals on February 27,

1997.

On March 10, 1997, respondents

submitted a letter from the China

Chamber of Commerce to the

Department, providing some limited

information with respect to the Chinese

crawfish industry.

Scope of the Investigation

The product covered by this

investigation 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 investigation 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

investigation is dispositive.

Period of Investigation

The period of investigation (POI) is

March 1, 1996 through August 31, 1996.

Non-Market-Economy Country Status

The Department has treated the PRC

as a nonmarket-economy country (NME)

in all past antidumping investigations

and administrative reviews. See, e.g.,

Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from

the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR

22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide);

and Final Determination of Sales at Less

Than Fair Value: Furfuryl Alcohol from

the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR

22545 (May 8, 1995) (Furfuryl Alcohol).

Neither respondents nor petitioner has

challenged such treatment. Therefore, in

accordance with section 771(18)(C) of

the Act, we will continue to treat the

PRC as an NME in this investigation.

Surrogate Country

When investigating imports from an

NME, section 773(c)(1) of the Act directs

the Department in most circumstances

to base normal value (NV) on the NME

producers’ factors of production, valued

in a surrogate market-economy country

or countries considered to be

appropriate by the Department. In

accordance with section 773(c)(4), the

Department, in valuing the factors of

production, shall utilize, to the extent

possible, the prices or costs of factors of

production in one or more marketeconomy countries that are comparable

in terms of economic development to

the NME country and are significant

producers of comparable merchandise.

The sources of the surrogate factor

values are discussed under the NV

section below.

The Department has determined that

India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Egypt and

Indonesia are countries comparable to

the PRC in terms of economic

development. See Memorandum from

David Mueller to Edward Yang, dated

December 20, 1996.

Based upon the information on the

record, we have found that none of

these five countries are significant

producers of the subject merchandise.

However, the Department has

determined that India is a significant

producer of comparable merchandise,

processed seafood. Since India’s level of

economic development is comparable to

that of the PRC, we have calculated NV

using Indian prices to value all of the

PRC producers’ factors of production

except for the raw material input of

whole, harvested crawfish. India does

not have a crawfish industry, and we

have determined that other forms of

seafood processed in India are not

sufficiently comparable to serve as

surrogate values for the primary input.

Therefore, we have considered other

countries in which to value the crawfish

input and have determined that Spain is

a reasonable surrogate country.

Although our research has revealed that

Spain does not have a crawfish tail meat

industry, we consider whole processed

crawfish to be a comparable product

within the meaning of section

773(c)(4)(B). Evidence on the record

indicates that Spain is a significant

producer of whole processed crawfish.

We have therefore valued the crawfish

input using 1996 Spanish import data,

in conformance with our practice of

obtaining and relying upon publicly

available information wherever

possible. For further discussion, see

Concurrence Memorandum from the

team to Joseph A. Spetrini: Preliminary

Determination, Freshwater Crawfish

Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of

China, dated March 18, 1997, on file in

room B–099 of the Commerce

Department (Concurrence

Memorandum).

Respondent Selection

Because we do not have the

administrative resources to analyze the

responses of all participating exporters,

we have determined that it is

appropriate to limit our investigation to

the analysis of the six largest PRC

crawfish tail meat exporters to the

United States, in accordance with

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

identified the largest exporters based on

the data supplied by those PRC

companies which submitted a full

questionnaire response. (See

Memorandum from the team to Joseph

A. Spetrini, dated January 24, 1997

(Respondent Selection Memorandum).)

The following PRC exporters submitted

full questionnaire responses in a timely

manner: China Everbright Trading

Company (China Everbright), Binzhou

Prefecture Foodstuffs Import and Export

Corp. (Binzhou), Yancheng Fengbao

Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. (Yancheng

Fengbao), Yancheng Foreign Trade

Corp. (Yancheng FTC), Huaiyin Foreign

Trade Corp. (Huaiyin FTC), Jiangsu

Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import &

Export Corp. (Jiangsu Cereals), Jiangsu

Light Industrial Products Import &

Export (Group) Yangzhou Co. (Jiangsu

Light), Lianyungang Yupeng, Jiangsu

Overseas Group Corp. (Jiangsu

Overseas), Anhui Cereals, Oils and

Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.

(Anhui Cereals), Qidong Baolu Aquatic

Products Co., Ltd. (Qidong Baolu),

Shandong Foodstuffs Import & Export

parte. Corp. (Shandong), Nantong Delu

Aquatic Food Co., Ltd. (Nantong Delu),

Huaiyin Ningtai Fisheries Co., Ltd.

(Huaiyin Ningtai), and Yancheng

Baolong Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd

(Yancheng Baolong). Four of these

firms, Anhui Cereals, Qidong Baolu,

Shandong, and Jiangsu Overseas,

reported no shipments during the POI.

The Department selected the following

six companies to examine: (1) China

Everbright; (2) Binzhou; (3) Huaiyin

FTC; (4) Yancheng FTC; (5) Jiangsu

Light; and (6) Lianyungang Yupeng.

Market-Oriented Industry (MOI) Status

Respondents in this investigation

have claimed that their material inputs

are acquired at market prices, and that,

accordingly, the Department should find

that the Chinese crawfish tail meat

industry is a market-oriented industry

(MOI). Thus, respondents claim, the

Department should use respondents’

actual PRC prices for valuing these

inputs.

The Department’s criteria for

determining whether an MOI exists

include, but are not limited to:

(1) For the subject merchandise, there must

be virtually no government involvement in

setting prices or amounts to be produced. For

example, state-required production of the

subject merchandise, whether for export or

domestic consumption in the NME country,

would be an almost insuperable barrier to

finding an MOI;
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices 5

(2) The industry producing the subject

merchandise should be characterized by

private or collective ownership. There may

be state-owned enterprises in the industry,

but substantial state ownership would weigh

heavily against finding an MOI; and

(3) Market-determined prices must be paid

for all significant inputs, whether material or

non-material (e.g., labor and overhead), and

for all but an insignificant portion of all the

inputs accounting for the total value of the

subject merchandise. For example, an input

price will not be considered marketdetermined if the producers of the

merchandise under investigation pay a stateset price for the input or if the input is

supplied to the producers at government

direction. Moreover, if there is any staterequired production in the industry

producing the input, the share of staterequired production must be insignificant.

Amendment to Final Determination of

Sales at Less than Fair Value and

Amendment to Antidumping Duty

Order: Chrome-plated Lug Nuts from the

People’s Republic of China, 57 FR 15054

(April 24, 1992) (Lug Nuts Amended

Final); Final Determination of Sales at

Less than Fair Value: Sulfanilic Acid

from the People’s Republic of China, 57

FR 29705 (July 6, 1992); and Porcelainon-Steel Cooking Ware from the

People’s Republic of China; Preliminary

Results of Antidumping Duty

Administrative Review, 62 FR 4250,

4251 (January 29, 1997).

We have determined that the criteria

outlined above have not been met in

this case because we do not have

complete information on the crawfish

tail meat industry. We received

questionnaire responses from only 25

percent of the 61 exporters named in the

petition. As described above, the

Department sent MOFTEC and the

China Chamber of Commerce several

requests for information regarding the

crawfish tail meat industry, including a

request that MOFTEC identify all of the

exporters of crawfish tail meat to the

United States. We also informed

MOFTEC of the possibility that a

request for MOI treatment could be

made. MOFTEC failed to provide a

complete list of Chinese crawfish tail

meat exporters, nor did it respond to the

Department’s other requests for

information. Analysis of the Port

Import/Export Reporting Services

(PIERS) import data, published by the

Journal of Commerce, provides further

evidence of the lack of complete

information regarding the PRC crawfish

tail meat industry available on the

record in this case. PIERS statistics

indicate that during the POI, crawfish

tail meat was imported from several

exporters who did not respond to our

questionnaire. See Memorandum from

Tamara Underwood to the File, dated

March 19, 1997 (PIERS Data

Memorandum). Without information for

each Chinese exporter, we cannot

determine that the criteria for

establishing an MOI are met. Therefore,

we preliminarily find that an MOI does

not exist. We have calculated NV in

accordance with section 773(c) of the

statute. For further discussion regarding

the MOI decision, see Concurrence

Memorandum.

Separate Rates

All of the respondents have requested

separate, company-specific rates. In

their questionnaire responses,

respondents state that they are

independent legal entities. Of the eleven

responding exporters in this

investigation, seven have reported that

they are collectively-owned enterprises,

registered as ‘‘owned by the whole

people,’’ and four have reported that

they are licensed as PRC-foreign joint

ventures. As stated in Silicon Carbide

and Furfuryl Alcohol, ownership of a

company by all the people does not

require the application of a single rate.

Accordingly, each of these respondents

is eligible for consideration for a

separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is

sufficiently independent from

government control to be entitled to a

separate rate, the Department analyzes

each exporting entity under the test

originally 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) (Sparklers), and amplified in

Silicon Carbide. Under this test, the

Department assigns separate rates in

nonmarket-economy cases only if an

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate

the absence of both (1) de jure and (2)

de facto governmental control over

export activities. See Silicon Carbide

and Furfuryl Alcohol.

1. De Jure Control

The respondents have placed on the

administrative record a number of

documents to demonstrate absence of de

jure control. Respondents submitted the

Civil Law of the People’s Republic of

China, issued on April 12, 1988 (the

Civil Law) and the ‘‘Law of the People’s

Republic of China on Industrial

Enterprises Owned by the Whole

People,’’ adopted April 13, 1988 (the

Industrial Enterprises Law). The

Department has previously determined

that the Civil Law does not confer de

jure independence on the branches of

government-owned and controlled

enterprises. See Sigma Corp. v. United

States, 890 F. Supp. 1077, 1080 (CIT

1995). However, the Industrial

Enterprises Law has been analyzed by

the Department in past cases and has

been found to sufficiently establish an

absense of de jure control of companies

‘‘owned by the whole people,’’ such as

those participating in this case. (See

Notice of Preliminary Determination of

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and

Postponement of Final Determination:

Certain Partial-Extension Steel Drawer

Slides with Rollers from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 29571, 29573

(June 5, 1995); Notice of Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Honey from the People’s

Republic of China, 60 FR 14725, 14727

(March 20, 1995); and Furfuryl Alcohol.

The Industrial Enterprises Law provides

that enterprises owned by ‘‘the whole

people’’ shall make their own

management decisions, be responsible

for their own profits and losses, choose

their own suppliers, and purchase their

own goods and materials. The

Regulations of the People’s Republic of

China for Controlling the Registration of

Enterprises as Legal Persons (Legal

Persons Regulations), issued on July 13,

1988 by the State Administration for

Industry and Commerce of the PRC,

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

business. 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). Respondents have

also submitted the ‘‘Foreign Trade Law

of the People’s Republic of China,’’

enacted May 12, 1994 (the Foreign

Trade Law), which allows producers to

export without using trading companies,

and further demonstrates the absence of

de jure control. See, e.g., Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Bicycles from the People’s

Republic of China, 61 FR 19026 (April

30, 1996) (Bicycles); and Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value and Postponement of Final

Determination: Melamine Institutional

Dinnerware Products from the People’s

Republic of China, 61 FR 43337 (August

22, 1996) (Melamine). In past PRC

investigations, the ‘‘Law of the People’s

Republic of China on Chinese

Contractual Joint Ventures’’ (April 13,

1988) has also been placed on the record

as evidence of absence of de jure control

with respect to Chinese-foreign joint

venture corporations. See Concurrence

Memorandum; and Notice of

Preliminary Determination of Sales at
6 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices

Less Than Fair Value and Postponement

of Final Determinations: Brake Drums

and Brake Rotors from the People’s

Republic of China, 61 FR 53190, 53192

(October 10, 1996) (Brake Drums and

Rotors). The articles of this law

authorize joint venture companies to

make their own operational and

managerial decisions. Respondents state

that crawfish tail meat does not appear

on any government lists regarding

export provisions or export licensing,

and that no quotas are imposed on

crawfish tail meat.

In sum, in prior cases, the Department

has analyzed the Chinese laws and

regulations on the record in this case,

and found that they establish an absence

of de jure control. We have no new

information in these proceedings which

would cause us to reconsider this

determination.

2. De Facto Control

The Department typically considers

four factors in evaluating whether each

respondent is subject to de facto

governmental control of its export

functions: (1) Whether the export prices

are set by or are subject to the approval

of a governmental authority; (2) whether

the respondent has authority to

negotiate and sign contracts and other

agreements; (3) whether the respondent

has autonomy from the government in

making decisions regarding the

selection of management; and (4)

whether the respondent retains the

proceeds of its export sales and makes

independent decisions regarding

disposition of profits or financing of

losses. See, e.g., Silicon Carbide and

Furfuryl Alcohol.

Respondents have asserted the

following: (1) They establish their own

export prices; (2) they negotiate

contracts, without guidance from any

governmental entities or organizations;

(3) they make their own personnel

decisions; and (4) they retain the

proceeds of their export sales, use

profits according to their business

needs, and have the authority to obtain

loans. In addition, respondents’

questionnaire responses indicate that

company-specific pricing during the

POI does not suggest coordination

among exporters. There is no indication

from the respondents’ business licenses

that the issuing authority imposes any

type of restriction on respondents’

businesses. Respondents state that no

such restrictions exist. This information

supports a preliminary finding that

there is a de facto absence of

governmental control of the export

functions of these companies. (See the

Concurrence Memorandum.)

Consequently, we preliminarily

determine that these exporters have met

the criteria for the application of

separate rates. We will examine this

matter further at verification.

China-Wide Rate

We are applying a single antidumping

deposit rate—the China-wide rate—to

all exporters in the PRC other than those

firms that were fully responsive to our

requests for information, and which we

determined should be assigned separate

rates. This determination is based on

our presumption that the export

activities of the companies that failed to

respond are controlled by the PRC

government. See, e.g., Bicycles.

Because we did not receive a response

from MOFTEC, we do not know the

universe of PRC crawfish tail meat

exporters. The petition named 61 PRC

producers and/or exporters of crawfish

tail meat and we received responses

from fifteen exporters. Furthermore, we

have evidence on the record confirming

that there are at least some additional

exporters (see PIERS Data

Memorandum). Therefore, we conclude

that not all exporters of crawfish tail

meat responded to our questionnaire.

Further, absent a response, we must

presume government control of these

and all other PRC companies for which

we cannot make a separate rate

determination. As discussed above, all

PRC exporters that have not qualified

for a separate rate have been treated as

a single enterprise subject to

government control. Because that single

enterprise failed to respond to the

Department’s requests for information,

that single enterprise is considered to be

uncooperative.

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

that:

If an interested party or any other person—

(A) withholds information that has been

requested by the administering authority; (B)

fails to provide such information by the

deadlines for the submission of the

information or in the form and manner

requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and

(e) of section 782; (C) significantly impedes

a proceeding under this title; or (D) provides

such information but the information cannot

be verified as provided in section 782(i), the

administering authority * * * shall, subject

to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise

available in reaching the applicable

determination under this title.

Accordingly, the Department based

the China-wide antidumping rate on

facts available. In addition, section

776(b) of the Act provides that, if the

Department finds that an interested

party ‘‘has failed to cooperate by not

acting to the best of its ability to comply

with a request for information,’’ the

Department may draw an inference that

is adverse to the interests of that party

in selecting from among the facts

otherwise available. Section 776(b)

provides that such an adverse inference

may be based on secondary information,

including information drawn from the

petition.

The non-responding exporters have

failed to cooperate by not acting to the

best of their ability to comply with the

Department’s request for information.

Accordingly, consistent with section

776(b)(1) of the Act, we have drawn an

adverse inference and applied, as total

adverse facts available, the higher of the

margin from the petition, as adjusted in

accordance with the Memorandum from

Elisabeth Urfer to Edward Yang,

Corroboration of Petition, March 18,

1997) (Corroboration Memorandum), on

file in Room B–099 of the Commerce

Department, or the highest rate

calculated for a respondent in the

proceeding. In the present case, based

on our comparison of the calculated

margin for the other respondents in this

proceeding to the estimated margins in

the petition, we have concluded that the

petition, as adjusted, is the most

appropriate record information on

which to form the basis for dumping

calculations. The petition rate is 201.63

percent.

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 at 870. The SAA

also clarifies that ‘‘corroborate’’ means

to determine whether the information

used has probative value. Id.

In accordance with this requirement,

we corroborated the margins in the

petition to the extent practicable. (See

Corroboration Memorandum.) The

petitioner based export prices on actual

FOB and CIF price quotations from

exporters of Chinese crawfish tail meat.

We compared the starting prices used by

petitioner to prices derived from U.S.

import statistics, and found that the

similarity to the import statistics

corroborated the starting prices in the

petition. See, e.g., Notice of Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Circular Welded Non-Alloy Steel

Pipe from South Africa, 61 FR 24271,

24273 (May 14, 1996); and Brake Drums

and Rotors. Petitioner made deductions

to the export price for foreign inland

freight, using the average distance

between cities where crawfish tail meat
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices 7

is processed in the PRC and the ports

from which the majority of Chinese

crawfish tail meat is exported. We could

not corroborate the freight rate used by

petitioner with other information on the

record; therefore, we adjusted the freight

rate used in the petition. We made no

other adjustments to export price.

Petitioner based NV on surrogate factor

values obtained from Spanish import

data and publicly available information

from India. We confirmed the accuracy

of petitioner’s NV data by comparing the

values used in the petition with values

obtained from publicly available

information collected in these and

previous NME investigations. We

adjusted petitioner’s NV calculation

using current Spanish import statistics.

See Corroboration Memorandum.

Rate for Respondents Not Selected

As stated above, several PRC

companies which reported shipments

during the POI submitted full

questionnaire responses in a timely

manner and claimed eligibility for

separate rates, but were not selected for

analysis in this investigation. It would

be inappropriate to assign these fully

cooperative respondents a rate based on

facts available, that would also apply to

PRC exporters of crawfish tail meat who

failed to cooperate in this investigation.

Therefore, we have assigned these

cooperative respondents a weightedaverage dumping margin based on the

calculated margins which were not zero

or de minimis, of the six selected

respondents that fully cooperated. (See

Brake Drums and Rotors.)

Fair Value Comparisons

To determine whether sales of

crawfish tail meat from the PRC,

exported to the United States by the

responsive exporters with shipments

during the POI, were made at less than

fair value, we compared the United

States Price (USP) to the NV, as

specified in the ‘‘United States Price’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this

notice.

United States Price

We based USP on export price (EP) in

accordance with section 772(a) of the

Act, because crawfish tail meat was sold

directly to the first unaffiliated

purchaser in the United States prior to

importation and constructed export

price was not warranted based on the

facts on the record. In accordance with

section 777A(d)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, we

compared POI-wide weighted-average

EPs to the NV of the subject

merchandise calculated using the

respondents’ factors of production.

We calculated EP based on packed

prices to unaffiliated purchasers in the

United States. We made deductions

from the starting price, where

appropriate, for the following: Foreign

inland freight, marine insurance (which

includes foreign inland insurance), and

ocean freight. The foreign inland freight,

marine insurance, ocean freight, and

foreign inland insurance were valued

using Indian rates because these

services were provided by a nonmarketeconomy supplier.

To value foreign inland freight, we

used public information regarding truck

rates from an April, 1994 article

published in the periodical, The Times

of India. To value ocean freight, we

obtained publicly available price quotes

from Sea Land Services for shipping

frozen crawfish tail meat from the PRC

to the West Coast and the Gulf Coast of

the United States. See memorandum to

the file from Tamara Underwood,

‘‘Ocean Freight Rates for the

Antidumping Investigation of Crawfish

Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of

China,’’ dated March 12, 1997.

Respondents stated in their

supplemental questionnaire responses

that they do not incur foreign brokerage

and handling costs. Therefore, we have

not included such costs in our

calculation.

For marine insurance, we used public

information reported in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Sulfur Dyes, Including Sulfur Vat

Dyes from India, 58 FR 11835 (March 1,

1993) (Sulfur Dyes), and applied in both

Brake Drums and Rotors and

Preliminary Determination of Sales at

Less Than Fair Value: Persulfates from

the People’s Republic of China 61 FR

53194 (December 27, 1996). See the

Factors Valuation Memorandum from

the team to Edward Yang, dated March

19, 1997 (Factors Memorandum).

Respondents have stated that their

domestic inland freight cost includes

insurance expenses; however, we do not

have any evidence that our surrogate

Indian freight rates include insurance.

Since neither party submitted publicly

available information regarding how to

value foreign inland insurance, we have

applied the same marine insurance rates

obtained from the Sulfur Dyes

investigation to value foreign inland

insurance, as was done in the Final

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Coumarin from the People’s

Republic of China, 59 FR 66895

(December 2, 1994).

Normal Value

In accordance with section 773(c) of

the Act, we calculated NV based on the

factors of production reported by the

factories in the PRC which processed

crawfish tail meat for the six exporters

selected for investigation. 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, as discussed in

the ‘‘Surrogate Country’’ section of this

notice.

Factor Valuations

The selection of the surrogate values

was based on the quality and

contemporaneity of the data. We used

import prices to value many factors. As

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by

adding freight expenses to make them

delivered prices. For those values not

contemporaneous with the POI, we

adjusted for inflation using wholesale

price indices or, in the case of labor

rates, consumer price indices, published

in the International Monetary Fund’s

International Financial Statistics. For a

complete analysis of surrogate values,

see the Factors Memorandum.

To value whole crawfish, we used the

average Spanish import price for fresh

(not frozen) crawfish imported from

Portugal between January and

November 1996. Spanish import data

show insignificant amounts of crawfish

from other countries at abberational

prices and, therefore, it would not be

appropriate to include this data in the

calculation of the crawfish cost. This

data is publicly available and is

published by the Spanish Ministry of

Customs in Madrid. This information is

contemporaneous with the POI. See the

Concurrence Memorandum and Factors

Memorandum for further discussion.

To value the by-product of shells and

body parts unfit for exportation (nonexport quality crawfish), we used Indian

import price data for the HTS category

‘‘shells of mollusks, crustaceans, and

echinoderms,’’ from the April through

August 1995 issues of Monthly Statistics

of the Foreign Trade of India (Monthly

Statistics).

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,

Second Quarter, 1996. We adjusted the

cost of coal to include an amount for

transportation. For water, we relied

upon public information from the

November 1993 Water Utilities Data

Book: Asian and Pacific Region,

published by the Asian Development

Bank.
8 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 58 / Wednesday, March 26, 1997 / Notices

To value plastic bags, cardboard

boxes, adhesive tape, paper, and labels,

we relied upon Indian import data from

the April through August 1995 issues of

Monthly Statistics. We adjusted the

values of packing materials to include

the cost of transportation. Respondents

did not provide distances between their

suppliers of adhesive tape, paper and

labels and their factories. Therefore, as

facts available, we used the longest

distance for either cardboard boxes or

plastic bags.

To value labor, we used data from the

United Nations’’ publication, Yearbook

of Labor Statistics (YLS). Data from the

YLS is not differentiated by skill level,

or by whether the labor is direct or

indirect. Thus, following the method

established in Preliminary

Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair

Value: Polyvinyl Alcohol from the

People’s Republic of China, 60 FR 52647

(October 10, 1995), we applied a single

labor value to all reported labor factors,

including indirect labor.

To value factory overhead, selling,

general, and administrative expenses

(SG&A), and profit, we calculated

simple average rates using publicly

available financial statements of five

Indian seafood processing companies

submitted in the petition, and applied

these rates to the calculated cost of

manufacture. See Concurrence

Memorandum.

Verification

As provided in section 782(i) of the

Act, we will verify the information used

in making our final determination.

Suspension of Liquidation

In accordance with section 733(d)(2)

of the Act, we are directing the Customs

Service to suspend liquidation of all

entries of freshwater crawfish tail meat

from the PRC that are entered, or

withdrawn from warehouse, for

consumption on or after the date of

publication of this notice in the Federal

Register. The Customs Service will

require a cash deposit or posting of a

bond equal to the estimated dumping

margins by which the NV exceeds the

USP, as shown below. These suspension

of liquidation instructions will remain

in effect until further notice.

The weighted-average dumping

margins are as follows:

Manufacturer/Exporter

Weightedaverage

margin (percent)

China Everbright Trading Company ........................................................................................................................................................ 172.97

Binzhou Prefecture Foodstuffs Import and Export Corp ......................................................................................................................... 103.68

Huaiyin Foreign Trade Corp .................................................................................................................................................................... 85.50

Yancheng Foreign Trade Corp ................................................................................................................................................................ 87.16

Jiangsu Light Industrial Products Import & Export (Group) Yangzhou Co ............................................................................................. 102.54

Lianyungang Yupeng Aquatic Products Co., Ltd .................................................................................................................................... 110.50

Yancheng Fengbao Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.1 .......................................................................................................................................... 113.35

Jiangsu Cereals, Oils & Foodstuffs Import & Export Corp.1 ................................................................................................................... 113.35

Nantong Delu Aquatic Food Co., Ltd.1 .................................................................................................................................................... 113.35

Huaiyin Ningtai Fisheries Co., Ltd.1 ........................................................................................................................................................ 113.35

Yancheng Baolong Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd.1 .......................................................................................................................................... 113.35

China-wide Rate 2 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 201.63

1This rate is the weighted average margin of the top six exporters named above.

2The China-wide rate applies to all entries of the subject merchandise except for entries from exporters that are identified individually above.

ITC Notification

In accordance with section 733(f) of

the Act, we have notified the ITC of our

determination. If our final

determination is affirmative, the ITC

will determine before the later of 120

days after the date of this preliminary

determination or 45 days after our final

determination whether the domestic

industry in the United States is

materially injured, or threatened with

material injury, by reason of imports, or

sales (or the likelihood of sales) for

importation, of the subject merchandise.

Public Comment

In accordance with 19 CFR 353.38,

case briefs or other written comments in

at least ten copies must be submitted to

the Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration no later than May 12,

1997, and rebuttal briefs, no later than

May 19, 1997. A list of authorities used

and a summary of arguments made in

the briefs should accompany these

briefs. Such summary should be limited

to five pages total, including footnotes.

We will hold a public hearing, if

requested, to afford interested parties an

opportunity to comment on arguments

raised in case or rebuttal briefs. At this

time, the hearing is scheduled for May

21, 1997, from 1:00–5:00 in Room 1414,

at the U.S. Department of Commerce,

14th Street and Constitution Avenue

N.W., Washington, DC 20230. Parties

should confirm by telephone the time,

date, and place of the hearing 48 hours

before the scheduled time.

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, Room 1870, within ten

days of the 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 the issues to be discussed. In

accordance with 19 CFR 353.38(b), oral

presentations will be limited to issues

raised in the case briefs. If this

investigation proceeds normally, we

will make our final determination by

June 2, 1997.

This determination is published

pursuant to section 733(f) of the Act.

Dated: March 19, 1997.

Robert S. LaRussa,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import

Administration.

[FR Doc. 97–7590 Filed 3–25–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P