10000 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room 1870, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should contain: 

1) the party’s name, address and 

telephone number; 2) the number of 

participants; and 3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. Id. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the respective case briefs. Id. The 

Department will issue the final results 

of this administrative review, including 

the results of its analysis of the issues 

raised in any written briefs, not later 

than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1). The Department will 

issue appropriate appraisement 

instructions for the companies subject to 

this review directly to CBP 15 days after 

the date of publication of the final 

results of this review. 

For Devi and Falcon we will calculate 

importer–specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rates based on the ratio of 

the total amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the sales. See 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1). To determine 

whether the duty assessment rates are 

de minimis, in accordance with the 

requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will calculate 

importer–specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

For the companies which were not 

selected for individual review, we will 

calculate an assessment rate based on 

the weighted average of the cash deposit 

rates calculated for the companies 

selected for individual review excluding 

any which are de minimis or 

determined entirely on AFA. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer–specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate without regard to 

antidumping duties any entries for 

which the assessment rate is de 

minimis. The final results of this review 

shall be the basis for the assessment of 

antidumping duties on entries of 

merchandise covered by the final results 

of this review and for future deposits of 

estimated duties, where applicable. See 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– 

others rate if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent and, therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; 2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review, or the original 

less–than-fair–value (LTFV) 

investigation, but the manufacturer is, 

the cash deposit rate will be the rate 

established for the most recent period 

for the manufacturer of the 

merchandise; and 4) the cash deposit 

rate for all other manufacturers or 

exporters will continue to be 10.17 

percent, the all–others rate made 

effective by the LTFV investigation. See 

Shrimp Order, 70 FR at 5148. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act 

and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: March 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–4920 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–549–822 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from Thailand: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

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 certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand with respect to 136 

companies. The two respondents which 

the Department selected for individual 

examination are Andaman Seafood Co., 

Ltd. (Andaman), Wales & Co. Universe 

Limited, Chanthaburi Frozen Food Co., 

Ltd. (CFF), Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., 

Ltd. (CSF), Phattana Seafood Co., Ltd. 

(PTN), Phattana Frozen Food Co., Ltd. 

(PFF), Thailand Fishery Cold Storage 

Public Co., Ltd. (TFC), Thai 

International Seafoods Co., Ltd. (TIS), 

and Sea Wealth Frozen Food Co., Ltd. 

(Sea Wealth) (collectively, the Rubicon 

Group), and Pakfood Public Company 

Limited and its affiliates, Asia Pacific 

(Thailand) Company, Limited and 

Takzin Samut Company, Limited 

(collectively, Pakfood). The respondents 

which were not selected for individual 

examination are listed in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. This is the third 

administrative review of this order. The 

review covers the period February 1, 

2007, through January 31, 2008. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

were made by Pakfood and the Rubicon 

Group below normal value (NV). In 

addition, based on the preliminary 

results for the respondents selected for 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10001 

1 Gallant Ocean has not withdrawn its February 

29, 2008, request for review. 

2 ‘‘Tails’’ in this context means the tail fan, which 

includes the telson and the uropods. 

individual examination, we have 

preliminarily determined a weighted– 

average margin for those companies that 

were not individually examined. 

If the preliminary results are adopted 

in our final results of administrative 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on the preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Johnson or David Goldberger, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 2, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20230; 

telephone (202) 482–4929 and (202) 

482–4136, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand. See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from Thailand, 70 FR 5145 (Feb. 

1, 2005). On February 4, 2008, the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand for the period February 1, 

2007, through January 31, 2008. See 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Order, Finding, or Suspended 

Investigation; Opportunity to Request 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 6477 

(February 4, 2008). In response to timely 

requests from interested parties, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(b)(1) and 

(2), to conduct an administrative review 

of the sales of certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp made by numerous companies 

during the period of review (POR), the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review for 165 companies. These 

companies are listed in the 

Department’s notice of initiation. See 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil, Ecuador, India, and Thailand: 

Notice of Initiation of Administrative 

Reviews, 73 FR 18754 (April 7, 2008). 

Between March and May 2008, the 

Department received submissions from 

certain companies that indicated they 

had no shipments of subject 

merchandise to the United States during 

the POR. 

Based upon the resources available to 

the Department, we determined that it 

was not practicable to examine all 

exporters/producers of subject 

merchandise for which a review was 

requested. As a result, on May 27, 2008, 

we selected the two largest producers/ 

exporters of certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp from Thailand during the POR, 

Pakfood and the Rubicon Group, for 

individual examination in this segment 

of the proceeding. See Memorandum to 

James Maeder from Irina Itkin entitled, 

‘‘2007–2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand: Selection of Respondents for 

Individual Review,’’ dated May 27, 

2008. On May 28, 2008, we issued the 

antidumping duty questionnaire to 

Pakfood and the Rubicon Group. 

On July 7, 2008, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the petitioner 

withdrew its request for review for the 

following eighteen companies: Anglo– 

Siam Seafoods Co., Ltd.; Applied DB 

Ind; Chonburi LC; Gallant Ocean 

(Thailand) Co., Ltd. (Gallant Ocean)1; 

Haitai Seafood Co., Ltd.; High Way 

International Co., Ltd.; Li–Thai Frozen 

Foods Co., Ltd.; Merkur Co., Ltd.; Ming 

Chao Ind Thailand; Nongmon SMJ 

Products; Queen Marine Food Co., Ltd.; 

SCT Co., Ltd.; Search & Serve; Smile 

Heart Foods Co., Ltd.; Shianlin Bangkok 

Co., Ltd.; Star Frozen Foods Co., Ltd.; 

Thai World Imports & Exports; and 

Wann Fisheries Co., Ltd. 

We received responses to sections A, 

B, C, and D of the questionnaire from 

Pakfood and the Rubicon Group in July 

and August 2008. 

On October 8, 2008, the Department 

postponed the preliminary results in 

this review until no later than March 2, 

2008. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From Ecuador, India, the 

People’s Republic of China, and 

Thailand: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limits for the Preliminary Results of the 

Third Administrative Reviews, 73 FR 

58931 (October 8, 2008). 

During the period September 2008 

through January 2009, we issued to 

Pakfood and the Rubicon Group 

supplemental questionnaires regarding 

sections A, B, C, and D of the original 

questionnaire. We received responses to 

these questionnaires during the period 

October 2008 through February 2009. 

On October 27, 2008, the Department 

issued a memorandum indicating that it 

intended to rescind the administrative 

review with respect to 29 respondent 

companies, and it invited comments on 

this action from interested parties. See 

Memorandum to The File from Kate 

Johnson entitled ‘‘Intent to Rescind in 

Part the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand,’’ dated October 27, 2008 

(Intent to Rescind Memorandum). On 

November 3, 2008, and November 13, 

2008, the Department received 

comments from 32 U.S. producers 

opposing the rescission with respect to 

the companies for which the petitioner 

withdrew its review request. On 

November 6, 2008, the petitioner 

responded to the comments filed on 

November 3, 2008. 

On December 19, 2008, we published 

a notice rescinding the administrative 

review with respect to 29 companies for 

the following reasons, where applicable: 

1) the request for an administrative 

review for the company was withdrawn 

in a timely manner; 2) the company had 

no shipments of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the POR; or 3) 

although there appeared to be U.S. 

customs entries of subject merchandise, 

we determined that the entries were not 

reportable transactions. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand; Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 77612 (December 19, 

2008). See also Intent to Rescind 

Memorandum. 

We conducted a verification of the 

Rubicon Group’s cost responses in 

February 2009. 

Scope of the Order 

The scope of this order includes 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawns, whether wild–caught (ocean 

harvested) or farm–raised (produced by 

aquaculture), head–on or head–off, 

shell–on or peeled, tail–on or tail–off,2

deveined or not deveined, cooked or 

raw, or otherwise processed in frozen 

form. 

The frozen warmwater shrimp and 

prawn products included in the scope of 

this order, regardless of definitions in 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS), are products 

which are processed from warmwater 

shrimp and prawns through freezing 

and which are sold in any count size. 

The products described above may be 

processed from any species of 

warmwater shrimp and prawns. 

Warmwater shrimp and prawns are 

generally classified in, but are not 

limited to, the Penaeidae family. Some 

examples of the farmed and wild– 

caught warmwater species include, but 

are not limited to, whiteleg shrimp 

(Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 

(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10002 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

(Penaeus chinensis), giant river prawn 

(Macrobrachium rosenbergii), giant tiger 

prawn (Penaeus monodon), redspotted 

shrimp (Penaeus brasiliensis), southern 

brown shrimp (Penaeus subtilis), 

southern pink shrimp (Penaeus 

notialis), southern rough shrimp 

(Trachypenaeus curvirostris), southern 

white shrimp (Penaeus schmitti), blue 

shrimp (Penaeus stylirostris), western 

white shrimp (Penaeus occidentalis), 

and Indian white prawn (Penaeus 

indicus). 

Frozen shrimp and prawns that are 

packed with marinade, spices or sauce 

are included in the scope of this order. 

In addition, food preparations, which 

are not ‘‘prepared meals,’’ that contain 

more than 20 percent by weight of 

shrimp or prawn are also included in 

the scope of this order. 

Excluded from the scope are: 1) 

breaded shrimp and prawns (HTSUS 

subheading 1605.20.10.20); 2) shrimp 

and prawns generally classified in the 

Pandalidae family and commonly 

referred to as coldwater shrimp, in any 

state of processing; 3) fresh shrimp and 

prawns whether shell–on or peeled 

(HTSUS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTSUS subheading 

1605.20.10.40); 7) certain dusted 

shrimp; and 8) certain battered shrimp. 

Dusted shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product: 1) that is produced from fresh 

(or thawed–from-frozen) and peeled 

shrimp; 2) to which a ‘‘dusting’’ layer of 

rice or wheat flour of at least 95 percent 

purity has been applied; 3) with the 

entire surface of the shrimp flesh 

thoroughly and evenly coated with the 

flour; 4) with the non–shrimp content of 

the end product constituting between 

four and 10 percent of the product’s 

total weight after being dusted, but prior 

to being frozen; and 5) that is subjected 

to IQF freezing immediately after 

application of the dusting layer. 

Battered shrimp is a shrimp–based 

product that, when dusted in 

accordance with the definition of 

dusting above, is coated with a wet 

viscous layer containing egg and/or 

milk, and par–fried. 

The products covered by this order 

are currently classified under the 

following HTSUS subheadings: 

0306.13.00.03, 0306.13.00.06, 

0306.13.00.09, 0306.13.00.12, 

0306.13.00.15, 0306.13.00.18, 

0306.13.00.21, 0306.13.00.24, 

0306.13.00.27, 0306.13.00.40, 

1605.20.10.10, and 1605.20.10.30. These 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Period of Review 

The POR is February 1, 2007, through 

January 31, 2008. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Thailand to the United States were 

made at less than NV, we compared the 

export price (EP) or constructed export 

price (CEP) to the NV, as described in 

the ‘‘Constructed Export Price/Export 

Price’’ and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of 

this notice, below. 

Pursuant to section 777A(d)(2) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 

for Pakfood and the Rubicon Group we 

compared the EPs or CEPs of individual 

U.S. transactions to the weighted– 

average NV of the foreign like product 

where there were sales made in the 

ordinary course of trade, as discussed in 

the ‘‘Cost of Production Analysis’’ 

section, below. 

Product Comparisons 

In accordance with section 771(16) of 

the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Pakfood and the Rubicon 

Group covered by the description in the 

‘‘Scope of the Order’’ section, above, to 

be foreign like products for purposes of 

determining appropriate product 

comparisons to U.S. sales. Pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.414(e)(2), we compared U.S. 

sales of shrimp to sales of shrimp made 

in the comparison market for Pakfood 

(home market) and the Rubicon Group 

(Canada) within the contemporaneous 

window period, which extends from 

three months prior to the month of the 

U.S. sale until two months after the sale. 

Where there were no sales of identical 

merchandise in the comparison market 

made in the ordinary course of trade to 

compare to U.S. sales, we compared 

U.S. sales of shrimp to sales of shrimp 

of the most similar foreign like product 

made in the ordinary course of trade. 

For the Rubicon Group, where there 

were no sales of identical or similar 

merchandise in the comparison market 

made in the ordinary course of trade to 

compare to U.S. sales, we made product 

comparisons using constructed value 

(CV). 

With respect to sales comparisons 

involving broken shrimp, we compared 

Pakfood’s and the Rubicon Group’s sales 

of broken shrimp in the United States to 

its sales of comparable quality shrimp in 

the comparison market. Where there 

were no sales of identical broken shrimp 

in the comparison market made in the 

ordinary course of trade to compare to 

U.S. sales, we compared U.S. sales of 

broken shrimp to sales of the most 

similar broken shrimp made in the 

ordinary course of trade. Where there 

were no sales of identical or similar 

broken shrimp, we made product 

comparisons using CV. 

In making the product comparisons, 

we matched foreign like products based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by Pakfood and the Rubicon Group in 

the following order: cooked form, head 

status, count size, organic certification, 

shell status, vein status, tail status, other 

shrimp preparation, frozen form, 

flavoring, container weight, 

presentation, species, and preservative. 

Constructed Export Price/Export Price 

For all U.S. sales made by Pakfood, as 

well as certain U.S. sales made by the 

Rubicon Group, we used EP 

methodology, in accordance with 

section 772(a) of the Act, because the 

subject merchandise was sold directly to 

the first unaffiliated purchaser in the 

United States prior to importation and 

CEP methodology was not otherwise 

warranted based on the facts of record. 

For certain U.S. sales made by the 

Rubicon Group, we calculated CEP in 

accordance with section 772(b) of the 

Act because the subject merchandise 

was sold for the account of the Rubicon 

Group by its subsidiary in the United 

States to unaffiliated purchasers. 

A. Pakfood 

We based EP on FOB, C&F or DDP 

(delivered, duty paid) prices to the first 

unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments to the starting price for 

discounts. We made deductions, where 

appropriate, for foreign inland freight 

expenses, pre–sale warehousing 

expenses, survey fees, foreign brokerage 

and handling expenses, ocean freight 

expenses (offset by freight adjustments, 

where appropriate), marine insurance 

expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, and U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees) in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act 

B. The Rubicon Group 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated EP for those sales 

where the merchandise was sold to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States prior to importation by the 

exporter or producer outside the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments to the starting price for 

billing adjustments and discounts. We 

made deductions for movement 

expenses in accordance with section 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10003 

3Where NV is based on CV, we determine the NV 

LOT based on the LOT of the sales from which we 

derive selling expenses, general and administrative 

(G&A) expenses, and profit for CV, where possible. 

772(c)(2)(A) of the Act; these included, 

where appropriate, foreign inland 

freight expenses, foreign warehousing 

expenses, foreign inland insurance 

expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, ocean freight 

expenses (offset by freight refunds, 

where appropriate), marine insurance 

expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees), and U.S. 

inland freight expenses (i.e., freight 

from port to warehouse). 

In accordance with section 772(b) of 

the Act, we calculated CEP for those 

sales where the merchandise was first 

sold (or agreed to be sold) in the United 

States before or after the date of 

importation by or for the account of the 

producer or exporter, or by a seller 

affiliated with the producer or exporter, 

to a purchaser not affiliated with the 

producer or exporter. We used the 

earlier of shipment date from Thailand 

to the customer or the U.S. affiliate’s 

invoice date to the customer as the date 

of sale for CEP sales, in accordance with 

our practice. See, e.g., Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 52065 (September 12, 

2007), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 11; 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and Negative 

Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

Thailand, 69 FR 76918 (December 23, 

2004), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 10 

(Thai Shrimp LTFV Investigation Final); 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Structural Steel 

Beams from Germany, 67 FR 35497 

(May 20, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for billing adjustments, 

discounts and rebates. We made 

deductions for movement expenses, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(2)(A) of 

the Act; these included, where 

appropriate, foreign inland freight 

expenses, foreign warehousing 

expenses, foreign inland insurance 

expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, ocean freight 

expenses (offset by freight refunds, 

where appropriate), marine insurance 

expenses, U.S. brokerage and handling 

expenses, U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees), U.S. 

inland insurance expenses, U.S. inland 

freight expenses (i.e., freight from port 

to warehouse and freight from 

warehouse to the customer), and U.S. 

warehousing expenses. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.402(b), we 

deducted those selling expenses 

associated with economic activities 

occurring in the United States, 

including direct selling expenses (e.g., 

bank charges, advertising, commissions, 

and imputed credit expenses), and 

indirect selling expenses (including 

inventory carrying costs and other 

indirect selling expenses). 

Pursuant to section 772(d)(3) of the 

Act, we further reduced the starting 

price by an amount for profit to arrive 

at CEP. In accordance with section 

772(f) of the Act, we calculated the CEP 

profit rate using the expenses incurred 

by the Rubicon Group and its U.S. 

affiliate on their sales of the subject 

merchandise in the United States and 

the profit associated with those sales. 

Normal Value 

A. Home Market Viability and Selection 

of Comparison Markets 

In order to determine whether there 

was a sufficient volume of sales in the 

home market to serve as a viable basis 

for calculating NV, we compared the 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product to the volume of 

U.S. sales of the subject merchandise, in 

accordance with section 773(a)(1)(C) of 

the Act. Based on this comparison, we 

determined that Pakfood had a viable 

home market during the POR. 

Consequently, we based NV on home 

market sales for Pakfood. 

Regarding the Rubicon Group, we 

determined that this respondent’s 

aggregate volume of home market sales 

of the foreign like product was 

insufficient to permit a proper 

comparison with U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise. Therefore, we 

used the Rubicon Group’s sales to 

Canada, its largest third–country 

market, as the basis for comparison– 

market sales in accordance with section 

773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.404. 

B. Affiliated–Party Transactions and 

Arm’s–Length Test 

During the POR, Pakfood sold the 

foreign like product to affiliated 

customers. To test whether these sales 

were made at arm’s–length prices, we 

compared, on a product–specific basis, 

the starting prices of sales to affiliated 

and unaffiliated customers, net of all 

discounts and rebates, movement 

charges, direct selling expenses, and 

packing expenses. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.403(c) and in accordance with the 

Department’s practice, where the price 

to the affiliated party was, on average, 

within a range of 98 to 102 percent of 

the price of the same or comparable 

merchandise sold to unaffiliated parties, 

we determined that sales made to the 

affiliated party were at arm’s length. See 

Antidumping Proceedings: Affiliated 

Party Sales in the Ordinary Course of 

Trade, 67 FR 69186, 69187 (Nov. 15, 

2002) (establishing that the overall ratio 

calculated for an affiliate must be 

between 98 percent and 102 percent in 

order for sales to be considered in the 

ordinary course of trade and used in the 

NV calculation). Sales to affiliated 

customers in the comparison market 

that were not made at arm’s–length 

prices were excluded from our analysis 

because we considered these sales to be 

outside the ordinary course of trade. See 

19 CFR 351.102(b). 

C. Level of Trade 

Section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of the Act 

states that, to the extent practicable, the 

Department will calculate NV based on 

sales at the same level of trade (LOT) as 

the EP or CEP. Sales are made at 

different LOTs if they are made at 

different marketing stages (or their 

equivalent). See 19 CFR 351.412(c)(2). 

Substantial differences in selling 

activities are a necessary, but not 

sufficient, condition for determining 

that there is a difference in the stages of 

marketing. See Id.; see also Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Cut–to-Length 

Carbon Steel Plate From South Africa, 

62 FR 61731, 61732 (November 19, 

1997) (Plate from South Africa). In order 

to determine whether the comparison 

sales were at different stages in the 

marketing process than the U.S. sales, 

we reviewed the distribution system in 

each market (i.e., the chain of 

distribution), including selling 

functions, class of customer (customer 

category), and the level of selling 

expenses for each type of sale. 

Pursuant to section 773(a)(1)(B)(i) of 

the Act, in identifying LOTs for EP and 

comparison market sales (i.e., NV based 

on either home market or third country 

prices),3 we consider the starting prices 

before any adjustments. For CEP sales, 

we consider only the selling activities 

reflected in the price after the deduction 

of expenses and profit under section 

772(d) of the Act. See Micron 

Technology, Inc. v. United States, 243 F. 

3d 1301, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2001). When 

the Department is unable to match U.S. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10004 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

4The following companies in the Rubicon Group 

produced subject merchandise during the POR and 

are collectively referred to as the ‘‘Thai packers’’: 

Andaman, CSF, CFF, PTN, PFF, TFC, TIS, and Sea 

Wealth. 

sales of the foreign like product in the 

comparison market at the same LOT as 

the EP or CEP, the Department may 

compare the U.S. sales to sales at a 

different LOT in the comparison market. 

In comparing EP or CEP sales at a 

different LOT in the comparison market, 

where available data make it 

practicable, we make an LOT 

adjustment under section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. Finally, for CEP sales only, if 

the NV LOT is at a more advanced stage 

of distribution than the LOT of the CEP 

and there is no basis for determining 

whether the difference in LOTs between 

NV and CEP affects price comparability 

(i.e., no LOT adjustment was 

practicable), the Department shall grant 

a CEP offset, as provided in section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. See Plate from 

South Africa, 62 FR at 61732–33. 

In this administrative review, we 

obtained information from each 

respondent regarding the marketing 

stages involved in making the reported 

foreign market and U.S. sales, including 

a description of the selling activities 

performed by each respondent for each 

channel of distribution. Company– 

specific LOT findings are summarized 

below. 

1. Pakfood 

Pakfood reported that it made EP sales 

in the U.S. market through a single 

channel of distribution (i.e., direct sales 

to distributors). We examined the 

selling activities performed for this 

channel and found that Pakfood 

performed the following selling 

functions: sales forecasting/market 

research, sales promotion/advertising, 

price negotiation, order processing, 

invoice issuance, payment receipt, 

delivery services, and packing. 

Accordingly, we find that Pakfood 

performed sales and marketing, and 

freight and delivery services at the same 

relative level of intensity for all U.S. 

sales. Because all sales in the United 

States are made through a single 

distribution channel, we preliminarily 

determine that there is one LOT in the 

U.S. market. With respect to the home 

market, Pakfood made sales to 

processors, distributors, retailers, and 

end–users. Pakfood stated that its home 

market sales were made through a single 

channel of distribution, regardless of 

customer category. We examined the 

selling activities performed for this 

channel, and found that Pakfood 

performed the following selling 

functions: sales forecasting/market 

research, sales promotion/advertising, 

price negotiation, order processing, 

invoice issuance, delivery services, 

payment receipt, and packing. 

Accordingly, we find that Pakfood 

performed sales and marketing, and 

freight and delivery services at the same 

relative level of intensity for all 

customers in the home market. Because 

all sales in the home market are made 

through a single distribution channel, 

we preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the home market. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the home market LOT and found that 

the selling functions performed for U.S. 

and home market customers are 

virtually identical. Therefore, we 

determined that sales to the U.S. and 

home markets during the POR were 

made at the same LOT, and as a result, 

no LOT adjustment was warranted. 

2. The Rubicon Group 

The Rubicon Group reported that it 

made both EP and CEP sales in the U.S. 

market to distributors/wholesalers, 

retailers, and food service industry 

customers. For EP sales, the Rubicon 

Group reported sales through one 

channel of distribution (i.e., direct from 

the Thai exporters to unaffiliated U.S. 

customers). For CEP sales, the Rubicon 

Group reported that its U.S. affiliate 

made sales through two channels of 

distribution: 1) from a warehouse; and 

2) direct shipments to customers (‘‘drop 

shipments’’). 

We examined the selling activities 

performed for each channel. For direct 

EP sales, the Rubicon Group reported 

the following selling functions: sales 

forecasting/market research, sales 

promotion/trade shows, inventory 

maintenance, order input/processing, 

freight and delivery arrangements, 

visits/calls and correspondence to 

customers, development of new 

packaging (with customer), packing and 

after–sales services. Accordingly, we 

found that the Rubicon Group 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing 

activities. As there was only one 

channel of distribution for EP sales, we 

found that there was one LOT for EP 

sales. 

For both warehoused and drop– 

shipment CEP sales, the Rubicon Group 

reported the following selling functions: 

inventory maintenance, order input/ 

processing, freight and delivery 

arrangements, and packing. As the 

selling functions performed for both 

warehoused and drop- shipment sales 

were identical, we found that there was 

one LOT for CEP sales. 

With respect to the Canadian market, 

the Rubicon Group reported sales to 

distributors/wholesalers, retailers, and 

end users. The Rubicon Group stated 

that its Canadian sales were made 

through two channels of distribution: 1) 

direct to Canadian customers; and 2) 

through its U.S. affiliate from a 

Canadian warehouse. We examined the 

reported selling activities and found 

that the Rubicon Group performed the 

following selling functions for direct 

sales to Canada: sales forecasting; 

market research; sales promotion; trade 

shows; inventory maintenance; order 

input/processing; freight and delivery 

arrangements; visits, calls and 

correspondence to customers; 

development of new packaging (with 

customer); packing; and after–sales 

services. For warehoused sales to 

Canada, we found that the Rubicon 

Group, via its U.S. affiliate, performed 

the following selling functions: sales 

forecasting; market research; 

advertising; sales promotion; trade 

shows; inventory maintenance; order 

input/processing; freight and delivery 

arrangements; visits, calls and 

correspondence to customers; 

development of new packaging and new 

markets (with customer); and after–sales 

services. Furthermore, we found that the 

Rubicon Group performed selling 

functions related to sales and marketing, 

freight and delivery, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing at the 

same relative level of intensity for all 

customers in the comparison market. 

Therefore, based on our overall analysis, 

we found that all of the Rubicon 

Group’s sales in the Canadian market 

constituted one LOT and that this LOT 

was the same as the LOT for EP sales. 

Consequently, we matched EP sales to 

comparison–market sales at the same 

LOT and no LOT adjustment was 

warranted. 

In comparing the Canadian LOT to the 

CEP LOT, we found that the selling 

activities performed by the Thai 

packers4 for CEP sales were significantly 

fewer than the selling activities that 

were performed for the Canadian sales. 

The Thai packers provided the 

following selling functions: sales 

forecasting; market research; sales 

promotion; advertising; trade shows; 

inventory maintenance; order input/ 

processing; freight and delivery 

arrangements; visits, calls and 

correspondence to customers; 

development of new packaging and new 

markets (with customer); packing; and 

after–sales services for Canadian sales. 

The only selling functions that the Thai 

packers provided for CEP sales were 

inventory maintenance, order input/ 

processing, freight and delivery 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10005 

5Wales and Co. Universe Ltd. is a member of the 

Rubicon Group. 

arrangements, and packing. Therefore, 

the Thai packers provided many more 

selling functions for Canadian sales than 

they provided for CEP sales, thus 

making the Canadian LOT more 

advanced than the CEP LOT. 

The Rubicon Group provided 

evidence on the record of this review 

supporting its contention that the 

selling activities that the Thai packers 

performed for Canadian customers were 

much more extensive than those 

performed for U.S. sales to its affiliate 

Rubicon Resources. While sales to 

Canada consumed a great deal of the 

Thai packers’ time and resources, the 

interaction between the Thai packers 

and Rubicon Resources appeared to be 

perfunctory, consuming very little of the 

Thai packers’ time and resources. See 

pages 11 through 20 of the Rubicon 

Group’s October 29, 2008, response to 

the Department’s supplemental Sections 

A, B, and C questionnaire. 

The record of this review also 

contains information concerning Wales 

& Co. Universe Ltd.’s (Wales’)5 activities 

with respect to sales made by the Thai 

packers to Rubicon Resources. 

According to Wales, it had limited 

communications with Rubicon 

Resources on behalf of the Thai packers 

because the Thai packers did not 

communicate directly with Rubicon 

Resources regarding U.S. sales made 

during the POR. As stated above, the 

Thai packers regularly communicated 

with unaffiliated customers to provide 

market analysis, negotiate sales 

opportunities, promote products, 

schedule in–person meetings, and 

develop new packaging designs. The 

Thai packers engaged in this level of 

service because it was necessary in 

order to compete for sales to unaffiliated 

customers. However, because the Thai 

packers created Rubicon Resources for 

the purpose of marketing and 

distributing their seafood products in 

the United States, and Rubicon 

Resources is required to purchase 

shrimp from the Thai packers, the Thai 

packers did not need to compete for 

business with Rubicon Resources as 

they did with unaffiliated customers. 

Accordingly, the Thai packers did not 

need to perform the same high level of 

service (e.g., market analysis, sales 

forecasting, or packaging design) for 

Rubicon Resources that they provided to 

unaffiliated customers, including 

Canadian customers, because Rubicon 

Resources performed these services for 

U.S. customers itself, using its sales and 

marketing staff based in the United 

States. 

Finally, the Rubicon Group provided 

documentation on the record of this 

review confirming the limited selling 

activities with respect to the Thai 

packers’ sales to Rubicon Resources 

(i.e., invoices and documentation 

associated with the shipment of the 

merchandise to Rubicon Resources) as 

well as documentation concerning 

Rubicon Resources’ sales to Canada 

(e.g., a sample report Rubicon Resources 

prepared to help a customer identify 

sales trends and make informed 

judgments on future purchases). 

Based on the above analysis, we 

considered the CEP LOT to be different 

from the Canadian LOT and to be at a 

less advanced stage of distribution than 

the Canadian LOT. Accordingly, we 

could not match CEP sales to sales at the 

same LOT for Canadian sales, nor could 

we determine a LOT adjustment based 

on the Rubicon Group’s Canadian sales 

because there was only one LOT in 

Canada. Therefore, it is not possible to 

determine if there was a pattern of 

consistent price differences between the 

sales on which NV is based and 

Canadian sales at the LOT of the export 

transaction. See section 773(a)(7)(A) of 

the Act. Furthermore, we have no other 

information that provides an 

appropriate basis for determining a LOT 

adjustment. Consequently, because the 

data available did not form an 

appropriate basis for making a LOT 

adjustment but the Canadian LOT was 

at a more advanced stage of distribution 

than the CEP LOT, we made a CEP offset 

to NV in accordance with section 

773(a)(7)(B) of the Act. The CEP offset 

was calculated as the lesser of: (1) the 

indirect selling expenses incurred on 

the third–country sales, or (2) the 

indirect selling expenses deducted from 

the starting price in calculating CEP. 

D. Cost of Production Analysis 

We found that Pakfood had made 

sales below the cost of production (COP) 

in the 2004–2006 administrative review, 

the most recently completed segment of 

this proceeding as of the date of the 

initiation of the 2007–2008 

administrative review, and such sales 

were disregarded. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand: 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 10669 

(March 9, 2007); unchanged in Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand: Final Results and Final 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 52065 

(September 12, 2007). Thus, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 

of the Act, there are reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that Pakfood made 

sales in the home market at prices below 

the cost of producing the merchandise 

in the current review period. 

We found that the Rubicon Group had 

made sales below the COP in the LTFV 

investigation, the most recently 

completed segment of this proceeding as 

of the date of the initiation of the 2007– 

2008 administrative review, and such 

sales were disregarded. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Negative 

Preliminary Critical Circumstances 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Thailand, 69 FR 47100, 47107 (Aug. 4, 

2004); unchanged in the Thai Shrimp 

LTFV Investigation Final. Thus, in 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) 

of the Act, there are reasonable grounds 

to believe or suspect that the Rubicon 

Group made sales in the third–country 

market at prices below the cost of 

producing the merchandise in the 

current review period. 

1. Calculation of Cost of Production 

In accordance with section 773(b)(3) 

of the Act, we calculated the 

respondents’ COPs based on the sum of 

their costs of materials and conversion 

for the foreign like product, plus 

amounts for G&A expenses and interest 

expenses (see ‘‘Test of Comparison 

Market Sales Prices’’ section below for 

treatment of comparison market selling 

expenses). 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by Pakfood and the 

Rubicon Group for the cost reporting 

period in their most recent 

supplemental section D questionnaire 

responses for the COP calculations, 

except for the following instances where 

the information was not appropriately 

quantified or valued: 

Pakfood 

We did not make any adjustments to 

Pakfood’s reported COP data. 

The Rubicon Group 

For CFF and CSF, we offset the total 

reported G&A expenses by the value of 

packaging scrap sold during the cost 

reporting period. In addition, for CFF, 

CSF and PTN, we adjusted the 

respective financial expense rate 

calculations to correct a minor 

calculation error and to reduce the 

applied interest income offset amount 

by the interest income earned from non– 

current assets. See Memorandum to 

Neal Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting from Angela Strom, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10006 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results the Rubicon 

Group,’’ dated March 2, 2009. 

2. Test of Comparison–Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product–specific basis, we 

compared the weighted–average COP to 

the home market sales (for Pakfood) or 

third–country sales (for the Rubicon 

Group) of the foreign like product, 

adjusted where applicable, as required 

under section 773(b) of the Act, in order 

to determine whether the sale prices 

were below the COP. For purposes of 

this comparison, we used COP exclusive 

of selling and packing expenses. The 

prices, adjusted for any applicable 

billing adjustments, were exclusive of 

any applicable movement charges, 

rebates, discounts, and direct and 

indirect selling expenses, and packing 

expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

comparison–market sales made at prices 

below the COP, we examine, in 

accordance with sections 773(b)(1)(A) 

and (B) or the Act: 1) whether, within 

an extended period of time, such sales 

were made in substantial quantities; and 

2) whether such sales were made at 

prices which permitted the recovery of 

all costs within a reasonable period of 

time in the normal course of trade. 

Where less than 20 percent of the 

respondent’s comparison–market sales 

of a given product are at prices less than 

the COP, we do not disregard any 

below–cost sales of that product because 

we determine that in such instances the 

below–cost sales were not made within 

an extended period of time and in 

‘‘substantial quantities.’’ Where 20 

percent or more of a respondent’s sales 

of a given product are at prices less than 

the COP, we disregard the below–cost 

sales because: 1) they were made within 

an extended period of time in 

‘‘substantial quantities,’’ in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(2)(B) and (C) of the 

Act, and 2) based on our comparison of 

prices to the weighted–average COPs for 

the POR, they were at prices which 

would not permit the recovery of all 

costs within a reasonable period of time, 

in accordance with section 773(b)(2)(D) 

of the Act. 

We found that, for certain specific 

products, more than 20 percent of 

Pakfood’s and the Rubicon Group’s 

comparison–market sales were at prices 

less than the COP and, in addition, such 

sales did not provide for the recovery of 

costs within a reasonable period of time. 

We therefore excluded these sales and 

used the remaining sales as the basis for 

determining NV, in accordance with 

section 773(b)(1) of the Act. 

For those U.S. sales of subject 

merchandise for which there were no 

useable comparison–market sales in the 

ordinary course of trade, we compared 

EPs or CEPs to the CV in accordance 

with section 773(a)(4) of the Act. See 

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Constructed Value’’ section below. 

E. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison–Market Prices 

1. Pakfood 

We based NV for Pakfood on ex– 

factory or delivered prices to 

unaffiliated customers in the home 

market, or prices to affiliated customers 

in the home market that were 

determined to be at arm’s length. Where 

appropriate, we made adjustments for 

billing adjustments and discounts. We 

made deductions, where appropriate, 

from the starting price for inland freight 

and pre–sale warehousing expenses, 

under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

We made adjustments under section 

773(a)(6)(C)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410 for differences in 

circumstances–of-sale for imputed 

credit expenses, bank/wire fee charges, 

commissions, and express mail charges, 

where appropriate. We also made 

adjustments in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.410(e) for indirect selling expenses 

incurred on comparison–market or U.S. 

sales where commissions were granted 

on sales in one market but not the other. 

Specifically, where commissions were 

granted in the U.S. market but not in the 

comparison market, we made a 

downward adjustment to NV for the 

lesser of: 1) the amount of commission 

paid in the U.S. market; or 2) the 

amount of indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the comparison market. 

Furthermore, we made adjustments 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

We also deducted home market 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs, in accordance with section 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

2. The Rubicon Group 

For the Rubicon Group, we calculated 

NV based on prices to unaffiliated 

customers. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for billing adjustments and 

rebates. We also made deductions for 

movement expenses, including inland 

freight (plant to warehouse and 

warehouse to port), warehousing, inland 

insurance, brokerage and handling, 

ocean freight (offset by freight refunds, 

where appropriate), third–country 

inland insurance, third–country 

customs fees, third–country brokerage 

and handling expenses, and third– 

country warehousing expenses, under 

section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. 

For third–country price–to-EP 

comparisons, we made circumstance–ofsale adjustments for differences in credit 

expenses, bank charges, and 

commissions, pursuant to section 

773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. 

For third–country price–to-CEP 

comparisons, we made deductions for 

third–country credit expenses, bank 

charges, commissions, advertising 

expenses, and repacking expenses, 

pursuant to 773(a)(6)(C) of the Act. In 

addition, we made a CEP offset in 

accordance with section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act, as discussed above in the 

‘‘Level of Trade’’ section. 

We also made adjustments in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.410(e) for 

indirect selling expenses incurred on 

comparison–market or U.S. sales where 

commissions were granted on sales in 

one market but not the other. 

Specifically, where commissions were 

granted in the U.S. market but not in the 

comparison market, we made a 

downward adjustment to NV for the 

lesser of: 1) the amount of commission 

paid in the U.S. market; or 2) the 

amount of indirect selling expenses 

incurred in the comparison market. If 

the commissions were granted in the 

comparison market but not in the U.S. 

market, we made an upward adjustment 

to NV for the lesser of: 1) the amount of 

commission paid in the comparison 

market; or 2) the amount of indirect 

selling expenses incurred in the U.S. 

market. 

Furthermore, we made adjustments 

for differences in costs attributable to 

differences in the physical 

characteristics of the merchandise in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(C)(ii) 

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.411. 

We also deducted third–country 

packing costs and added U.S. packing 

costs in accordance with sections 

773(a)(6)(A) and (B) of the Act. 

F. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Constructed Value 

Section 773(a)(4) of the Act provides 

that where NV cannot be based on 

comparison–market sales, NV may be 

based on CV. Accordingly, for those 

frozen warmwater shrimp products for 

Pakfood and the Rubicon Group for 

which we could not determine the NV 

based on comparison–market sales, 

either because there were no useable 

sales of a comparable product or all 

sales of comparable products failed the 

COP test, we based NV on CV. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10007 

Section 773(e) of the Act provides that 

CV shall be based on the sum of the cost 

of materials and fabrication for the 

imported merchandise, plus amounts 

for SG&A expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. For the Rubicon Group, 

we calculated the cost of materials and 

fabrication based on the methodology 

described in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section, above, and we based 

SG&A and profit for each respondent on 

the actual amounts incurred and 

realized by it in connection with the 

production and sale of the foreign like 

product in the ordinary course of trade 

for consumption in the comparison 

market, in accordance with section 

773(e)(2)(A) of the Act. For comparisons 

to the Rubicon Group’s EP, we made 

circumstances–of-sale adjustments by 

deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred on comparison–market sales 

from, and adding U.S. direct selling 

expenses to CV, in accordance with 

section 773(a)(8) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.410. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars in accordance with section 

773A of the Act and 19 CFR 351.415 

based on the exchange rates in effect on 

the dates of the U.S. sales as certified by 

the Federal Reserve Bank. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

We preliminarily determine that 

weighted–average dumping margins 

exist for the respondents for the period 

February 1, 2006, through January 31, 

2007, as follows: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Pakfood Public Company Limited / Asia 

Pacific (Thailand) 

Company Limited / 

Takzin Samut Company Limited (collectively, Pakfood) ......... 4.25 

Andaman Seafood Co., 

Ltd. / Chanthaburi 

Frozen Food Co., Ltd. 

/ Chanthaburi Seafoods Co., Ltd. / 

Phattana Seafood 

Co., Ltd. / Phattana 

Frozen Food Co., Ltd. 

/ Seawealth Frozen 

Food Co. Ltd. / Thailand Fishery Cold 

Storage Public Co., 

Ltd. / Thai International Seafoods 

Co., Ltd. /Wales & 

Co. Universe Limited 

(collectively, the Rubicon Group) ................ 4.64 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Review–Specific Average Rate Applicable 

to the Following Companies:6.

6This rate is based on the weighted average 

of the margins calculated for those companies 

selected for individual examination, excluding 

de minimis margins or margins based entirely 

on AFA. 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

ACU Transport Co., Ltd. 4.51 

Ampai Frozen Food 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

A.S. Intermarine Foods 

Co., Ltd ..................... 4.51 

Asian Seafoods 

Coldstorage Public 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Asian Seafoods 

Coldstorage 

(Suratthani) Co., Ltd. 4.51 

Assoc. Commercial 

Systems .................... 4.51 

A. Wattanachai Frozen 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 4.51 

Bangkok Dehydrated 

Marine Product Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Bright Sea Co., Ltd. ...... 4.51 

C P Mdse ...................... 4.51 

C Y Frozen Food Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Chaiwarut Co., Ltd. ....... 4.51 

Chaivaree Marine Products Co., Ltd. ............. 4.51 

Charoen Pokphand 

Foods Public Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Chue Eie Mong Eak 

Ltd. Part. ................... 4.51 

Core Seafood Processing Co., Ltd. ......... 4.51 

Crystal Seafood ............ 4.51 

Daedong (Thailand) Co. 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Daiei Taigen (Thailand) Co., Ltd. ........ 4.51 

Daiho (Thailand) Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Earth Food Manufacturing Co., Ltd. .......... 4.51 

Euro–Asian International Seafoods 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

F.A.I.T. Corporation 

Limited ....................... 4.51 

Far East Cold Storage 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Findus (Thailand) Ltd. .. 4.51 

Fortune Frozen Foods 

(Thailand) Co., Ltd. ... 4.51 

Frozen Marine Products 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Gallant Ocean (Thailand) Co., Ltd. ........... 4.51 

Gallant Ocean Seafood 

Corporation ............... 4.51 

Good Fortune Cold 

Storage Co., Ltd. ....... 4.51 

Good Luck Product Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Gulf Coast Crab Intl ...... 4.51 

H.A.M. International 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Heng Seafood Limited 

Partnership ................ 4.51 

Heritrade Co., Ltd. ........ 4.51 

HIC (Thailand) Co., Ltd. 4.51 

I.T. Foods Industries 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Inter–Oceanic Resources Co., Ltd. ....... 4.51 

Inter–Pacific Marine 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 4.51 

Intersia Foods Co., Ltd. 4.51 

K .D. Trading Co., Ltd. 4.51 

K Fresh ......................... 4.51 

KF Foods ...................... 4.51 

K.L. Cold Storage Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Kiang Huat Sea Gull 

Trading Frozen Food 

Public Co., Ltd. ......... 4.51 

Kingfisher Holdings Ltd. 4.51 

Kibun Trdg .................... 4.51 

Klang Co., Ltd. .............. 4.51 

Kitchens of the Ocean 

(Thailand) Ltd. ........... 4.51 

Kongphop Frozen 

Foods Co., Ltd. ......... 4.51 

Kosamut Frozen Foods 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Lee Heng Seafood Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Leo Transports ............. 4.51 

Maersk Line .................. 4.51 

Magnate & Syndicate 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Mahachai Food Processing Co., Ltd. ......... 4.51 

Marine Gold Products 

Limited ....................... 4.51 

May Ao Co., Ltd. .......... 4.51 

May Ao Foods Co., Ltd. 4.51 

N&N Foods Co., Ltd. .... 4.51 

Namprik Maesri Ltd. 

Part. ........................... 4.51 

Narong Seafood Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Ongkorn Cold Storage 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Pacific Queen Co., Ltd. 4.51 

Penta Impex Co., Ltd. .. 4.51 

Pinwood Nineteen Ninety Nine ....................... 4.51 

Piti Seafoods Co., Ltd. 4.51 

Premier Frozen Products Co., Ltd. ............. 4.51 

Preserved Food Specialty Co., Ltd. ........... 4.51 

Rayong Coldstorage 

(1987) Co., Ltd. ......... 4.51 

S&D Marine Products 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

S&P Aquarium .............. 4.51 

S&P Syndicate Public 

Company Ltd. ............ 4.51 

S. Chaivaree Cold Storage Co., Ltd. ............. 4.51 

S.C.C. Frozen Seafood 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

S. Khonkaen Food Industry Public Co., Ltd. 4.51 

SMP Foods Products 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10008 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

Samui Foods Company 

Limited ....................... 4.51 

Sea Bonanza Food Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Seafoods Enterprise 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Seafresh Fisheries ........ 4.51 

Seafresh Industry Public 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Siam Food Supply Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Siam Intersea Co., Ltd. 4.51 

Siam Marine Products 

Co. Ltd. ..................... 4.51 

Siam Ocean Frozen 

Foods Co. Ltd. .......... 4.51 

Siam Union Frozen 

Foods ........................ 4.51 

Siamchai International 

Food Co., Ltd. ........... 4.51 

Southport Seafood ........ 4.51 

STC Foodpak Ltd. ........ 4.51 

Suntechthai Intertrading 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Surapon Foods Public 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Surapon Nichirei Foods 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Surapon Seafood .......... 4.51 

Suratthani Marine Products Co., Ltd. ............. 4.51 

Suree Interfoods Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

T.S.F. Seafood Co., Ltd. 4.51 

Tanaya International 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Teppitak Seafood Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Tey Seng Cold Storage 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Thai–Ger Marine Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Thai Agri Foods Public 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Thai I–Mei Frozen 

Foods Co., Ltd. ......... 4.51 

Thai Mahachai Seafood 

Products Co., Ltd. ..... 4.51 

Thai Ocean Venture 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Thai Patana Frozen ...... 4.51 

Thai Prawn Culture 

Center Co., Ltd. ........ 4.51 

Thai Royal Frozen Food 

Co. Ltd. ..................... 4.51 

Thai Spring Fish Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Thai Union Frozen 

Products Public Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Thai Union Seafood 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Thai Yoo Ltd., Part. ...... 4.51 

The Siam Union Frozen 

Food Co., Ltd. ........... 4.51 

The Union Frozen Products Co., Ltd. ............. 4.51 

Trang Seafood Products 

Public Co., Ltd. ......... 4.51 

Transamut Food Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Tung Lieng Trdg ........... 4.51 

United Cold Storage 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent Margin 

V Thai Food Product .... 4.51 

Wales & Co. Universe 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Xian–Ning Seafood Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Y2K Frozen Foods Co., 

Ltd. ............................ 4.51 

Yeenin Frozen Foods 

Co., Ltd. .................... 4.51 

YHS Singapore Pte ...... 4.51 

ZAFCO TRDG .............. 4.51 

Disclosure and Public Hearing 

The Department will disclose to 

parties the calculations performed in 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309, 

interested parties may submit cases 

briefs not later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of this notice. 

Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised 

in the case briefs, may be filed not later 

than five days after the date for filing 

case briefs. Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding are encouraged to submit 

with each argument: 1) a statement of 

the issue; 2) a brief summary of the 

argument; and 3) a table of authorities. 

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, Room 1870, within 30 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice. Requests should contain: 1) the 

party’s name, address and telephone 

number; 2) the number of participants; 

and 3) a list of issues to be discussed. 

See 19 CFR 351.310(c). Issues raised in 

the hearing will be limited to those 

raised in the respective case briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any written briefs, not 

later than 120 days after the date of 

publication of this notice, pursuant to 

section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the 

administrative review, the Department 

shall determine, and CBP shall assess, 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries, in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212. The Department will issue 

appropriate appraisement instructions 

for the companies subject to this review 

directly to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of this 

review. 

For the majority of the Rubicon 

Group’s and Pakfood’s U.S. sales, we 

note that these companies reported the 

entered value for the U.S. sales in 

question. We will calculate importer– 

specific ad valorem duty assessment 

rates based on the ratio of the total 

amount of antidumping duties 

calculated for the examined sales to the 

total entered value of the examined 

sales for that importer. 

For certain of the Rubicon Group’s 

and Pakfood’s U.S. sales, we note that 

these companies did not report the 

entered value for the U.S. sales in 

question. We will calculate importer– 

specific per–unit duty assessment rates 

by aggregating the total amount of 

antidumping duties calculated for the 

examined sales and dividing this 

amount by the total quantity of those 

sales. With respect to Pakfood’s and the 

Rubicon Group’s U.S. sales of shrimp 

with sauce, for which no entered value 

was reported, we will include the total 

quantity of the merchandise with sauce 

in the denominator of the calculation of 

the importer–specific rate because CBP 

will apply the per–unit duty rate to the 

total quantity of merchandise entered, 

including the sauce weight. To 

determine whether the duty assessment 

rates are de minimis, in accordance with 

the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will calculate 

importer–specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

For the responsive companies which 

were not selected for individual 

examination, we will calculate an 

assessment rate based on the weighted 

average of the cash deposit rates 

calculated for the companies selected 

for individual examination excluding 

any which are de minimis or 

determined entirely on AFA. 

We will instruct CBP to assess 

antidumping duties on all appropriate 

entries covered by this review if any 

importer–specific assessment rate 

calculated in the final results of this 

review is above de minimis (i.e., at or 

above 0.50 percent). Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate without regard to antidumping 

duties any entries for which the 

assessment rate is de minimis (i.e., less 

than 0.50 percent). The final results of 

this review shall be the basis for the 

assessment of antidumping duties on 

entries of merchandise covered by the 

final results of this review and for future 

deposits of estimated duties, where 

applicable. 

The Department clarified its 

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on 

May 6, 2003. See Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Proceedings: 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 

FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) (Assessment 

Policy Notice). This clarification will 

apply to entries of subject merchandise 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10009 

7Effective January 16, 2009, there is no longer a 

cash deposit requirement for certain producers/ 

exporters in accordance with the Implementation of 

the Findings of the WTO Panel in United States 

Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Thailand: 

Notice of Determination under Section 129 of the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial 

Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 74 FR 

5638 (January 30, 2009) (Section 129 

Determination). 

1The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is 

the Petitioner. 

2Some of these requests created an overlap in the 

number of companies upon which an 

administrative review was requested. 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

sold to the intermediary (e.g., a reseller, 

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– 

others rate effective during the POR (i.e., 

5.95 percent) if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above7 will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(1), in which case the cash 

deposit rate will be zero; 2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review or the original 

LTFV investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and 4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will be 5.34 percent, the 

all–others rate made effective by the 

Section 129 determination. These 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: March 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–4924 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–552–802 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial 

Rescission and Request for 

Revocation, In Part, of the Third 

Administrative Review 

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 certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

(‘‘Vietnam’’), covering the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) of February 1, 2007, 

through January 31, 2008. As discussed 

below, we preliminarily determine that 

sales have been made below normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) to assess 

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer–specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–6905. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 

5152 (February 1, 2005) (‘‘Order’’). On 

February 4, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam for the 

period February 1, 2007, through 

January 31, 2008. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 6477 (February 4, 2008). 

On February 29, 2008, we received 

requests to conduct administrative 

reviews of 145 companies from 

Petitioner,1 two companies from the 

Louisiana Shrimp Association (‘‘LSA’’), 

and requests by certain Vietnamese 

companies.2 See Notice of Initiation of 

Administrative Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the People’s 

Republic of China 73 FR 18739 (April 7, 

2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On April 7, 2008, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of 

170 producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise from Vietnam. See 

Initiation Notice. However, after 

accounting for duplicate names and 

additional trade names associated with 

certain exporters, the number of 

companies upon which we initiated is 

actually 110 companies/groups. On 

April 8, 2008, the Department posted 

the separate rate certification and 

separate rate application on its website 

for Vietnamese exporters for whom a 

review was initiated to complete and 

submit to the Department. 

On April 14, 2008, May 5, 2008, and 

May 7, 2008, the Department received 

letters from Vinh Hoan Corporation 

(formerly Vinh Hoan Co., Ltd.) (‘‘Vinh 

Hoan’’), Kim Anh Co., Ltd. (‘‘Kim 

Anh’’), Quoc Viet Seaproducts 

Processing Trading Import and Export 

Co., Ltd., (‘‘Quoc Viet’’), and C.P. 

Vietnam Livestock Company Limited 

(‘‘CP Vietnam’’), respectively, indicating 

that they made no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

Of the 110 companies/groups upon 

which we initiated an administrative 

review, 78 companies did not submit 

separate rate certifications or 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES