[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14392-14397]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7590]


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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[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

[[Page 14393]]

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 
market-economy 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;

[[Page 14394]]

    (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 market-determined if 
the producers of the merchandise under investigation pay a state-set 
price for the input or if the input is supplied to the producers at 
government direction. Moreover, if there is any state-required 
production in the industry producing the input, the share of state-
required 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 Porcelain-on-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

[[Page 14395]]

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

[[Page 14396]]

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 weighted-average 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 nonmarket-economy 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 (non-export 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.

[[Page 14397]]

    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:

                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Weighted- 
                                                               average  
                   Manufacturer/Exporter                        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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This rate is the weighted average margin of the top six exporters   
  named above.                                                          
\2\ The 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