10026 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

1The petitioners are the members of the Ad Hoc 

Shrimp Trade Action Committee (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘Petitioners’’). 

2See Initiation for a listing of these companies. 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–570–893 

Third Administrative Review of Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China: Preliminary Results 

and Partial Rescission of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp (‘‘shrimp’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’), covering the period of review 

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

January 31, 2008. As discussed below, 

we preliminarily determine that certain 

respondents in this review made sales 

in the United States at prices 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 importer– 

specific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Walker, 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) 482–0413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department received timely 

requests from both Petitioners1 and 

certain PRC companies, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(b), during the 

anniversary month of February, for 

administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty order on shrimp from 

the PRC. On April 7, 2008, the 

Department initiated an administrative 

review of 482 producers/exporters of 

subject merchandise from the PRC.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’’). 

Respondent Selection 

On June 16, 2008, in accordance with 

section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), the 

Department selected Hilltop 

International (‘‘Hilltop’’) and Zhanjiang 

Go–Harvest Aquatic Products Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Go–Harvest’’) for individual 

examination in this review, since they 

were the two largest exporters by 

volume during the POR, based on CBP 

data of U.S. imports. See Memorandum 

to James Doyle, Director, Office IX, from 

Susan Pulongbarit, International Trade 

Analyst, ‘‘2007–2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review,’’ 

dated June 16, 2008. On July 1, 2008, 

the Department issued antidumping 

duty questionnaires to Hilltop and Go– 

Harvest. 

On July 3, 2008, Hilltop withdrew its 

request for review, and on July 7, 2008, 

Petitioners withdrew their request for 

review of Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd. 

Hong Kong (the predecessor in interest 

to Hilltop International); Yangjiang City 

Yelin Hoitat Quick Frozen Seafood Co., 

Ltd.; Fuqing Yihua Aquatic Food Co., 

Ltd.; and Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd. 

(collectively referred to hereafter as 

‘‘Hilltop/Yelin’’). Since both withdrawal 

requests were timely, and no other party 

requested a review of Hilltop/Yelin, in 

accordance with section 351.213(d)(1) of 

the Department’s regulations, the 

Department is rescinding the 

administrative review with respect to 

Hilltop/Yelin. See the ‘‘Partial Recission 

of Review’’ section below. 

Consequently, on August 25, 2008, in 

accordance with section 777A(c)(2) of 

the Act, the Department selected 

Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine 

Resources Co., Ltd. (‘‘Regal’’) for 

individual examination in this review, 

because Regal was the next largest 

exporter by volume during the POR, 

based on CBP data of U.S. imports. See 

Memorandum to James Doyle, Director, 

Office IX, from Erin Begnal, Senior 

International Trade Analyst, ‘‘2007– 

2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the People’s Republic of 

China: Selection of Additional 

Mandatory Respondent,’’ dated August 

25, 2008. On August 29, 2008, the 

Department issued the antidumping 

duty questionnaire to Regal. 

Regal 

Between October 3, 2008, and January 

21, 2009, Regal responded to the 

Department’s original and supplemental 

questionnaires. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.307(b)(iv), from January 19–23, 

2009, the Department conducted 

verification of Regal’s questionnaire 

responses. See Memorandum to the File 

through Scot Fullerton, Program 

Manager, Office IX, from Paul Walker, 

Senior Case Analyst, ‘‘Third 

Administrative Review of Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China: Verification of 

Zhanjiang Regal Integrated Marine 

Resources Co., Ltd.,’’ dated concurrently 

with this notice (‘‘Regal Verification 

Report’’). 

Go–Harvest 

In response to the Department’s July 

1, 2008, questionnaire, on August 8, 

2008, Go–Harvest submitted a 

certification to the Department stating 

that it had no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. However, 

as noted above in the ‘‘Respondent 

Selection’’ section, the Department 

placed information on the record 

obtained from CBP which showed that 

shipments of subject merchandise had 

been made by Go–Harvest during the 

POR. On October 22, 2008, the 

Department issued a second 

antidumping duty questionnaire to Go– 

Harvest. On November 5, 2008, Go– 

Harvest submitted a second no 

shipment certification. On November 

12, 2008, the Department issued Go– 

Harvest a third questionnaire to resolve 

the discrepancies between the CBP data 

and Go–Harvest’s no shipment 

certifications of August 8, 2008, and 

November 5, 2008. On November 17, 

2008, Go–Harvest submitted a letter 

stating that it would not respond to the 

Department’s questionnaire of 

November 12, 2008. On November 19, 

2008, the Department provided Go– 

Harvest an additional opportunity to 

respond to the Department’s November 

12, 2008, questionnaire. Go–Harvest 

made no response to this additional 

opportunity. 

Separate Rates 

On May 30, 2008, we received a 

separate rate application from Shantou 

Longsheng Aquatic Product Foodstuff 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Shantou Longsheng’’). Go– 

Harvest did not demonstrate eligibility 

for a separate rate during the course of 

this proceeding. Thus, Go–Harvest will 

be considered part of the PRC–wide 

entity for purposes of this review. 

Rescission of Reviews 

As noted above, on July 7, 2008, the 

Petitioners made a timely withdrawal of 

review request on Hilltop/Yelin. 

Between April 17, 2008, and April 30, 

2008, the following companies 

submitted no shipment certifications: 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10027 

3The Department in its initiation notice included 

‘‘Allied Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhangjiang) Co., 

Ltd.’’ due to the Petitioners’ misspelling of the 

company’s name in its review request. See Letter 

from Dewey & LeBouef to the Secretary of 

Commerce, ‘‘Request for Administrative Reviews,’’ 

(Feb. 29, 2008). In its April 17, 2008, letter, Allied 

Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd. 

clarified the correct spelling of its name. See Letter 

from Trade Pacific to the Secretary of Commerce, 

‘‘Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China.’’ The Department notes that the 

review is preliminarily rescinded for both the 

proper name and the misspelled name of this 

company. 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

Allied Pacific Group (comprised of 

Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd.; 

Allied Pacific Aquatic Products 

(Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.;3 Zhanjiang Allied 

Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd.; Allied 

Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd.; and King Royal 

Investments Ltd.); Gallant Ocean 

(Nanhai), Ltd.; Luk Ka Paper Industrial 

Ltd.; Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., 

Ltd.; and Shantou Yuexing Enterprise 

Company. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On October 21, 2008, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on the surrogate country and 

information pertaining to valuing factors 

of production (‘‘FOPs’’). On January 16, 

2009, Petitioners submitted surrogate 

value comments regarding various Thai 

sources. No other interested party 

submitted comments on the surrogate 

country or information pertaining to 

valuing FOPs. 

Case Schedule 

On October 8, 2008, in accordance 

with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, we 

extended the time period for issuing the 

preliminary results by 120 days, until 

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). 

Partial Rescission of Review 

Final Partial Rescission 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the 

Secretary will rescind an administrative 

review, in whole or in part, if a party 

who requested the review withdraws 

the request within ninety days of the 

date of publication of notice of initiation 

of the requested review. Because the 

Petitioner’s and Hilltop’s withdrawals of 

requests for review were timely and no 

other party requested a review of the 

following companies, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are 

rescinding this review with respect to 

Hilltop/Yelin. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission 

As discussed in the ‘‘Supplementary 

Information’’ section above, several 

companies indicated they did not export 

PRC origin shrimp to the United States 

during the POR. In order to corroborate 

these submissions, we reviewed PRC 

shrimp shipment data obtained from 

CBP, and found no discrepancies with 

the statements made by these firms. 

Therefore, for the reasons mentioned 

above, we are preliminarily rescinding 

the administrative review with respect 

to: Allied Pacific Group (comprised of 

Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd.; 

Allied Pacific Aquatic Products 

(Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.; Zhanjiang Allied 

Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd.; Allied 

Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd.; and King Royal 

Investments Ltd.); Gallant Ocean 

(Nanhai), Ltd.; Luk Ka Paper Industrial 

Ltd.; Shantou Yelin Frozen Seafood Co., 

Ltd.; and Shantou Yuexing Enterprise 

Company because each reported having 

made no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR, and the 

Department found no information to 

indicate otherwise. See, e.g., Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Notice of 

Preliminary Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Third Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 72 FR 

53527, 53530 (September 19, 2007), 

unchanged in Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission, 73 FR 15479, 15480 (March 

24, 2008) (‘‘Third Fish Fillets Review’’). 

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,4

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 investigation, regardless of 

definitions in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (‘‘HTS’’), 

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, white–leg shrimp 

(Penaeus vannemei), banana prawn 

(Penaeus merguiensis), fleshy prawn 

(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 

investigation. 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 

investigation. 

Excluded from the scope are: (1) 

Breaded shrimp and prawns ( HTS 

subheading 1605.20.1020); (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 

(HTS subheadings 0306.23.0020 and 

0306.23.0040); (4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.0510); (5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; (6) Lee Kum Kee’s shrimp 

sauce; (7) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS subheading 

1605.20.1040); (8) certain dusted 

shrimp; and (9) 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 individually quick 

frozen (‘‘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 

investigation are currently classified 

under the following HTS subheadings: 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10028 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

5Regal purchases ice to keep the shrimp fresh as 

they are transported from the farm to the factory. 

Regal reported an FOP usage rate for this purchased 

ice. 

0306.13.0003, 0306.13.0006, 

0306.13.0009, 0306.13.0012, 

0306.13.0015, 0306.13.0018, 

0306.13.0021, 0306.13.0024, 

0306.13.0027, 0306.13.0040, 

1605.20.1010 and 1605.20.1030. These 

HTS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this investigation 

is dispositive. 

Facts Available 

Sections 776(a)(1) and 776(a)(2) of the 

Act, provide that, if necessary 

information is not available or on the 

record, or if an interested party: (A) 

withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

and (e) of the Act; (C) significantly 

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

Section 782(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information 

requested in the requested form and 

manner, together with a full explanation 

and suggested alternative forms in 

which such party is able to submit the 

information,’’ the Department may 

modify the requirements to avoid 

imposing an unreasonable burden on 

that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e) of the Act, disregard all 

or part of the original and subsequent 

responses, as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

‘‘deficient’’ under section 782(d) if: (1) 

the information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability in 

providing the information and meeting 

the requirements established by the 

Department; and (5) the information can 

be used without undue difficulties. 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states 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 from the administering 

authority or the Commission, the 

administering authority or the 

Commission . . . , in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ See also Statement 

of Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at 870 (1994) 

(‘‘SAA’’). Adverse inferences are 

appropriate ‘‘to ensure that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ Id. An adverse 

inference may include reliance on 

information derived from the petition, 

the final determination in the 

investigation, any previous review, or 

any other information placed on the 

record. See section 776(b) of the Act. 

Regal’s Water Consumption 

For these preliminary results, in 

accordance with sections 776(a)(1) and 

776(a)(2)(B) of the Act, we have 

determined that the use of facts 

available is appropriate for Regal’s 

consumption of water. As noted above, 

consistent with section 782(c)(1) of the 

Act, if an interested party promptly 

notifies the Department that it is unable 

to submit the information in the 

requested form and manner, together 

with a full explanation and suggested 

alternative forms in which such party is 

able to submit the information, the 

Department will take into consideration 

the ability of the party to submit the 

information in the requested form and 

manner and may modify such 

requirements to the extent necessary to 

avoid imposing an unreasonable burden 

on that party. 

Consistent with section 773(c)(1)(B) of 

the Act, the Department values FOPs 

that a respondent uses to produce the 

subject merchandise. See, e.g., Third 

Fish Fillets Review at Comment 8E. In 

past cases the Department has 

specifically stated that water which is 

pumped from a well, regardless of 

whether the respondent incurs a cost for 

that water, will be treated as a FOP and 

valued accordingly. See, e.g., Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the Eleventh 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 34438 (June 22, 

2007) at Comment 8. In its questionnaire 

responses, Regal stated that it used 

water during the farming and processing 

of shrimp. Regal also stated that it did 

not track the amount of water used 

because it incurred no cost for pumping 

the water from either wells (at the 

processing factory) or the ocean (at the 

farms). At verification the Department 

found no evidence that Regal tracks the 

amount of water it consumes in its 

normal course of business. See Regal 

Verification Report at 2. However, at 

verification Regal was able to provide 

estimates of the water it consumed. Id. 

Because information regarding the 

actual amount of water consumed is not 

available and Regal was unable to 

provide the data regarding actual water 

consumption, and in the form and 

manner required, we are applying facts 

available to Regal’s water consumption 

in accordance with sections 776(a)(1), 

776(a)(2)(B) and 782(c)(1) of the Act. 

As noted above, Regal consumes 

water at its shrimp farms. As facts 

available, we are applying the average 

amount of water consumed at the farms, 

as estimated by Regal’s farming 

production manager, to the NV. See 

Regal Verification Report at 2. In 

addition, Regal uses water at its 

processing factory to make ice, to clean 

the shrimp during the production 

process, and to pack the shrimp. Also, 

as facts available, to account for the ice 

consumed by Regal at its processing 

plant, we are applying the average 

amount of ice reported by Regal5 in 

transporting the shrimp form the farm to 

the factory. See Regal’s October 23, 2008 

submission. In addition, as facts 

available, to calculate the water used to 

pack the shrimp we are deducting from 

the gross weight of the sale, the weight 

of the shrimp and packing. Moreover, 

we are using an average of these water 

weights to estimate the amount of water 

Regal used to wash the shrimp during 

the production process. Because these 

usage rates are proprietary, see 

Memorandum to the File, through Scot 

Fullerton, Program Manager, Office IX, 

from Paul Walker, Senior Analyst, 

‘‘Third Administrative Review of Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China: Zhanjiang Regal 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10029 

Integrated Marine Resources Co., Ltd.,’’ 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Regal Analysis Memo’’) for further 

details. 

Moreover, we note that for future 

reviews of this order, Regal must 

comply with all requests for information 

by the Department and should, 

therefore, maintain the appropriate 

records to comply with these requests. 

If Regal, or any other Respondents, are 

unable to comply with such requests, 

the Department may resort to the use of 

adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’) absent 

the information on the record that is 

required by the Department to conduct 

its proceedings in accordance with 

section 776(b) of the Act. 

Regal’s Unreported FOP and Movement 

Expense 

For these preliminary results, in 

accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) of 

the Act, we have determined that the 

use of facts available is appropriate for 

Regal’s unreported consumption of 

diesel oil and movement expenses it 

paid for filing U.S. Food and Drug 

Administration (‘‘USFDA’’) paperwork 

in the United States for certain sales. 

Regal did not report diesel oil 

consumption or certain movement 

expenses in its submissions of FOP and 

sales data dated October 3, 2008, 

December 16, 2008, and January 21, 

2009. At verification, Regal attempted to 

submit data regarding its diesel oil 

consumption and other movement 

expenses as minor corrections. 

However, the Department did not accept 

this new information as minor 

corrections. See Regal Verification 

Report at 2. Unlike water, the usage of 

which is not currently recorded in 

Regal’s books and records, we note 

diesel oil consumption and this 

particular movement expense are 

recorded in Regal’s books and records 

and were readily available to Regal. 

Because Regal did not report this data 

in a timely manner, and failed to report 

its diesel oil consumption and the 

movement expense to the Department, 

despite multiple opportunities to 

provide complete FOP and sales data, 

we are applying facts available to 

Regal’s unreported diesel oil 

consumption and movement expense 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) of the 

Act. 

As noted above, section 776(b) of the 

Act states 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 from the administering 

authority or the Commission, the 

administering authority or the 

Commission , in reaching the applicable 

determination under this title, may use 

an inference that is adverse to the 

interests of that party in selecting from 

among the facts otherwise available.’’ 

See also SAA accompanying the URAA 

at 870. An adverse inference may 

include reliance on information derived 

from the Petition, the final 

determination in the investigation, any 

previous review, or any other 

information placed on the record. See 

section 776(b) of the Act. 

In this instance, Regal failed to act to 

the best of its ability to comply with the 

Department’s repeated requests for 

information regarding all of its FOPs 

and sales expenses, i.e., diesel oil and 

the movement expenses it paid for filing 

USFDA paperwork. See, e.g., the 

Department’s letter dated August 29, 

2008, at c–25 and d–8, where we asked 

Regal to report all U.S. movement 

expenses and all energy inputs, 

respectively. Only at verification did it 

become clear that these two previously 

unreported costs existed. As noted 

above, these factors are reported in 

Regal’s books and records and were 

readily available to Regal. Regal did not 

indicate that it was unable to submit 

complete FOP and sales information in 

the requested form and manner. 

Therefore, we find that Regal failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability and 

we are applying AFA to this FOP and 

movement expense incurred by Regal in 

these preliminary results, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act. As partial 

AFA for Regal’s diesel oil FOP, we are 

using the highest single monthly usage 

rate for diesel oil and applying this 

monthly usage rate to all months during 

the POR. In addition, as partial AFA for 

Regal’s movement expense, we are using 

the highest single fee incurred by Regal 

and applying this fee to all sales 

invoices for which this fee was 

incurred. 

Go–Harvest/PRC–wide Entity 

As noted above in the 

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section, 

the Department selected Go–Harvest for 

individual examination in this review, 

based on CBP data of U.S. imports 

which showed that Go–Harvest was one 

of the largest exporters by volume 

during the POR. Although Go–Harvest 

submitted certifications that it had no 

shipments, it refused to answer our 

questions regarding the discrepancies 

between its no shipments claims and 

the CBP data. Accordingly, based on the 

CBP data, and Go–Harvest’s failure to 

refute that data, we find that Go–Harvest 

made shipments of subject merchandise 

during the POR, and consequently, as a 

selected respondent, was required to 

answer the full questionnaire. By not 

responding to the Department’s 

questionnaire, Go–Harvest failed to 

demonstrate that it qualifies for separate 

rate status. Accordingly, we consider 

Go–Harvest to be a part of the PRC–wide 

entity. 

We find that the PRC–wide entity, 

including Go–Harvest, withheld 

requested information, failed to provide 

information in a timely manner and in 

the form requested, and significantly 

impeded this proceeding. Moreover, by 

refusing to answer the Department’s 

questionnaire, the PRC–wide entity, 

including Go–Harvest, failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Therefore, the Department must rely on 

adverse facts otherwise available in 

order to determine a margin for the 

PRC–wide entity, pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(A), (B), (C) and 776(b) of the 

Act. See e.g., Non–Malleable Cast Iron 

Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

69546 (December 1, 2006) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. See also 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results of the First 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 10689, 10692 

(March 9, 2007) (decision to apply total 

AFA to the NME–wide entity 

unchanged in Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Final Results of 

the First Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and First New 

Shipper Review, 72 FR 52052 

(September 12, 2007) (‘‘First Vietnamese 

Shrimp Review’’). By doing so, we 

ensure that the companies that are part 

of the PRC–wide entity will not obtain 

a more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than had they cooperated 

fully in this review. 

In deciding which facts to use as 

AFA, section 776(b) of the Act and 19 

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from (1) the petition, (2) a final 

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In reviews, the Department 

normally selects, as AFA, the highest 

rate on the record of any segment of the 

proceeding. See, e.g., Certain Steel Nails 

from the People’s Republic of China: 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances, 73 FR 33977 (June 16, 

2008). The Court of International Trade 

(‘‘CIT’’) and the Federal Circuit have 

consistently upheld the Department’s 

practice in this regard. See Rhone 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10030 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

Poulenc, Inc. v. United States, 899 F.2d 

1185, 1190 (Fed. Circ. 1990) (‘‘Rhone 

Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. v. United States, 

346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 1335 (CIT 2004) 

(upholding a 73.55 percent total AFA 

rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a 

LTFV investigation); see also Kompass 

Food Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 

CIT 678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different, fully cooperative respondent); 

and Shanghai Taoen International 

Trading Co., Ltd. v. United States, 360 

F. Supp 2d 1339, 1348 (CIT 2005) 

(upholding a 223.01 percent total AFA 

rate, the highest available dumping 

margin from a different respondent in a 

previous administrative review). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available role to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 

(February 23, 1998). The Department’s 

practice also ensures ‘‘that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870; see 

also Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil, 69 FR 76910, 76912 (December 

23, 2004); D&L Supply Co. v. United 

States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). In choosing the appropriate 

balance between providing respondents 

with an incentive to respond accurately 

and imposing a rate that is reasonably 

related to the respondent’s prior 

commercial activity, selecting the 

highest prior margin ‘‘reflects a common 

sense inference that the highest prior 

margin is the most probative evidence of 

current margins, because, if it were not 

so, the importer, knowing of the rule, 

would have produced current 

information showing the margin to be 

less.’’ Rhone Poulenc, 899 F.2d at 1190. 

Consistent with the statute, court 

precedent, and its normal practice, the 

Department has assigned the rate of 

112.81 percent, the highest rate on the 

record of any segment of the proceeding, 

to the PRC–wide entity, which includes 

Go–Harvest, as AFA. See, e.g., Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Final Results And Rescission, In Part, of 

2004/2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative and New Shipper 

Reviews, 72 FR 52049 (September 12, 

2007). As discussed further below, this 

rate has been corroborated. 

Corroboration of Facts Available 

Section 776(c) of the Act requires that 

the Department corroborate, to the 

extent practicable, secondary 

information on which it relies as facts 

available. To be considered 

corroborated, information must be 

found to be both reliable and relevant. 

We are applying as AFA the highest rate 

from any segment of this administrative 

proceeding, which is the rate currently 

applicable to all exporters subject to the 

PRC–wide rate. The AFA rate in the 

current review (i.e., the PRC–wide rate 

of 112.81 percent) represents the highest 

rate from the petition in the LTFV 

investigation. See Notice of Amended 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From the People’s Republic of 

China, 70 FR 5149 (February 1, 2005). 

For purposes of corroboration, the 

Department will consider whether that 

margin is both reliable and relevant. The 

AFA rate we are applying for the current 

review was corroborated in the LTFV 

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

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned 

Warmwater Shrimp From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 70997 

(December 8, 2004). No information has 

been presented in the current review 

that calls into question the reliability of 

this information. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 

Mexico; Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812, 

6814 (February 22, 1996), the 

Department disregarded the highest 

margin in that case as adverse best 

information available (the predecessor 

to facts available) because the margin 

was based on another company’s 

uncharacteristic business expense 

resulting in an unusually high margin. 

The information used in calculating this 

margin was based on sales and 

production data submitted by the 

petitioner in the LTFV investigation, 

together with the most appropriate 

surrogate value information available to 

the Department chosen from 

submissions by the parties in the LTFV 

investigation, as well as information 

gathered by the Department itself. 

Furthermore, the calculation of this 

margin was subject to comment from 

interested parties in the proceeding. As 

there is no information on the record of 

this review that demonstrates that this 

rate is not appropriately used as AFA, 

we determine that this rate has 

relevance. 

As the 112.81 percent rate is both 

reliable and relevant, we determine that 

it has probative value. Accordingly, we 

determine that the calculated rate of 

112.81 percent, which is the current 

PRC–wide rate, is in accord with the 

requirement of section 776(c) that 

secondary information be corroborated 

to the extent practicable (i.e., that it 

have probative value). We have assigned 

this AFA rate to exports of the subject 

merchandise by the PRC–wide entity. 

NME Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as an NME country. In 

accordance with section 771(18)(C)(i) of 

the Act, any determination that a foreign 

country is an NME country shall remain 

in effect until revoked by the 

administering authority. See Brake 

Rotors From the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Partial 

Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 

2006). None of the parties to this 

proceeding has contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

NV in accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Separate Rate Determination 

A designation as an NME remains in 

effect until it is revoked by the 

Department. See section 771(18)(C) of 

the Act. Accordingly, there is a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the PRC are subject to 

government control and, thus, should be 

assessed a single antidumping duty rate. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances, In 

Part: Certain Lined Paper Products From 

the People’s Republic of China, 71 FR 

53079 (September 8, 2006); Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Partial Affirmative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Diamond Sawblades 

and Parts Thereof from the People’s 

Republic of China, 71 FR 29303 (May 

22, 2006). 

In the Initiation, the Department 

notified parties of the application 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10031 

6These include Yelin Enterprise Co., Ltd. Hong 

Kong (the predecessor in interest to Hilltop 

International); Yangjiang City Yelin Hoitat Quick 

Frozen Seafood Co., Ltd.; Fuqing Yihua Aquatic 

Food Co., Ltd.; and Fuqing Minhua Trade Co., Ltd. 

7These include Allied Pacific Group (comprised 

of Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd.; Allied 

Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.; 

Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd.; 

Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd.; and King Royal 

Investments Ltd.); Gallant Ocean (Nanhai), Ltd.; 

Luk Ka Paper Industrial Ltd.; Shantou Yelin Frozen 

Seafood Co., Ltd.; and Shantou Yuexing Enterprise 

Company. 

process by which exporters and 

producers may obtain separate rate 

status in NME investigations. See 

Initiation. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of the 

merchandise subject to review in NME 

countries a single rate unless an 

exporter can affirmatively demonstrate 

an absence of government control, both 

in law (de jure) and in fact (de facto), 

with respect to exports. To establish 

whether a company is sufficiently 

independent to be entitled to a separate, 

company–specific rate, the Department 

analyzes each exporting entity in an 

NME country under the test established 

in Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), 

as amplified by Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the 

People’s Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 

(May 2, 1994) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 

Absence of De Jure Control 

The Department considers the 

following de jure criteria in determining 

whether an individual company may be 

granted a separate rate: (1) an absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. See 

Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

In this administrative review, only 

Regal and Shantou Longsheng have 

placed sufficient evidence on the record 

that demonstrate an absence of de jure 

control. See Regal’s submission of 

October 3, 2008; see also Shantou 

Longsheng’s submission of May 30, 

2008. The Department has analyzed 

such PRC laws as the ‘‘Foreign Trade 

Law of the People’s Republic of China’’ 

and the ‘‘Company Law of the People’s 

Republic of China’’ and has found that 

they establish an absence of de jure 

control. See, e.g., Preliminary Results of 

New Shipper Review: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms From the People’s Republic 

of China, 66 FR 30695, 30696 (June 7, 

2001). We have no information in this 

proceeding that would cause us to 

reconsider this determination. Thus, we 

find that the evidence on the record 

supports a preliminary finding of an 

absence of de jure government control 

based on: (1) an absence of restrictive 

stipulations associated with the 

exporter’s business license; (2) the legal 

authority on the record decentralizing 

control over the respondent, as 

demonstrated by the PRC laws placed 

on the record of this review; and (3) 

other formal measures by the 

government decentralizing control of 

companies. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

As stated in previous cases, there is 

some evidence that certain enactments 

of the PRC central government have not 

been implemented uniformly among 

different sectors and/or jurisdictions in 

the PRC. See Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Preserved 

Mushrooms from the People’s Republic 

of China, 63 FR 72255 (December 31, 

1998). Therefore, the Department has 

determined that an analysis of de facto 

control is critical in determining 

whether respondents are, in fact, subject 

to a degree of government control which 

would preclude the Department from 

assigning separate rates. The 

Department typically considers four 

factors in evaluating whether each 

respondent is subject to de facto 

government control of its export 

functions: (1) whether the exporter sets 

its own export prices independent of the 

government and without the approval of 

a government authority; (2) whether the 

respondent has the 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 its 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 Silicon Carbide, 59 FR at 

22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589. 

The Department conducted separate 

rate analyses for Regal and Shantou 

Longsheng, which have asserted the 

following: (1) there is no government 

participation in setting export prices; (2) 

sales managers and authorized 

employees have the authority to create 

binding sales contracts; (3) they do not 

have to notify any government 

authorities of management selections; 

(4) there are no restrictions on the use 

of export revenue; and (5) they are is 

responsible for financing their own 

losses. The questionnaire responses of 

Regal and Shantou Longsheng do not 

indicate that pricing is coordinated 

among exporters. During our analysis of 

the information on the record, we found 

no information indicating the existence 

of government control of export 

activities. See Regal’s submission of 

October 3, 2008; see also Shantou 

Longsheng’s submission of May 30, 

2008. Consequently, we preliminarily 

determine that Regal and Shantou 

Longsheng have met the criteria for the 

application of a separate rate. 

In the Initiation, we requested that all 

companies listed therein wishing to 

qualify for separate rate status in this 

administrative review submit, as 

appropriate, either a separate rate status 

application or certification. See 

Initiation. As discussed above, the 

Department initiated this administrative 

review with respect to 482 companies, 

and is rescinding the review on five6 of 

those 482 companies. In addition, we 

are preliminarily rescinding the review 

with respect to eleven7 other companies 

due to the lack of shipments during the 

POR. Thus, including Regal and 

Shantou Longsheng, 466 companies 

remain subject to this review. Only 

Regal and Shantou Longsheng provided, 

as appropriate, either a separate rate 

application or certification. No other 

company listed in the Initiation, 

including Go–Harvest discussed above, 

has demonstrated its eligibility for 

separate rate status in this 

administrative review. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily determines 

that there were exports of merchandise 

under review from PRC exporters that 

did not demonstrate their eligibility for 

separate rate status. As a result, the 

Department is treating these PRC 

exporters as part of the PRC–wide 

entity, subject to the PRC–wide rate. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department investigates 

imports from an NME country, section 

773(c)(1) of the Act directs it to base NV, 

in most circumstances, on the NME 

producer’s FOPs, valued in a surrogate 

market economy country or countries 

considered to be appropriate by the 

Department. In accordance with section 

773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing the 

FOPs, the Department shall utilize, to 

the extent possible, the prices or costs 

of FOPs in one or more market economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and significant producers 

of comparable merchandise. The 

sources of the surrogate factor values are 

discussed under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section below and in the Memorandum 

to the File through Scot Fullerton, 

Program Manager, Office IX, from Paul 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10032 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

Walker, Senior Case Analyst, ‘‘Third 

Administrative Review of Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the People’s 

Republic of China: Surrogate Factor 

Valuations for the Preliminary Results,’’ 

dated concurrently with this notice 

(‘‘Surrogate Values Memo’’). 

As discussed in the ‘‘NME Country 

Status’’ section, the Department 

considers the PRC to be an NME 

country. The Department determined 

that India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

Colombia, and Thailand are countries 

comparable to the PRC in terms of 

economic development. See the 

Department’s letter to all interested 

parties, dated October 21, 2008. 

Moreover, it is the Department’s 

practice to select an appropriate 

surrogate country based on the 

availability and reliability of data from 

these countries. See Department Policy 

Bulletin No. 04.1: Non–Market Economy 

Surrogate Country Selection Process, 

dated March 1, 2004. The Department 

finds India to be a reliable source for 

surrogate values because India is at a 

comparable level of economic 

development pursuant to 773(c)(4) of 

the Act, is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise, and has 

publicly available and reliable data. 

Furthermore, the Department notes that 

India has been the primary surrogate 

country in past segments. As noted 

above, the Petitioner submitted 

surrogate value data for certain, but not 

all, FOPs for Thailand on January 16, 

2009. However, we note that we are 

placing Indian surrogate value 

information for all FOPs on the record 

of this review concurrently with this 

notice, and that the FOPs which are 

valued using Indian import statistics are 

of a greater HTS specificity than the 

Thai import statistics. See Surrogate 

Values Memo. Given the above facts, the 

Department has selected India as the 

primary surrogate country for this 

review. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the export price 

(‘‘EP’’) for sales to the United States for 

Regal. We calculated EP based on the 

price to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. In accordance with 

section 772(c) of the Act, as appropriate, 

we deducted from the starting price to 

unaffiliated purchasers foreign inland 

freight, foreign brokerage and handling, 

customs duties, domestic brokerage and 

handling and other movement expenses 

incurred. For the services provided by 

an NME vendor or paid for using an 

NME currency we based the deduction 

of these movement charges on surrogate 

values. See Surrogate Values Memo for 

details regarding the surrogate values for 

movement expenses. For expenses 

provided by a market economy vendor 

and paid in U.S. dollars, we used the 

actual cost per kilogram of the freight. 

See Regal Analysis Memo. 

Normal Value 

Methodology 

Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides 

that the Department shall determine the 

NV using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

and the information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home–market 

prices, third–country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. The Department bases NV on 

the FOP because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of NMEs renders price comparisons and 

the calculation of production costs 

invalid under the Department’s normal 

methodologies. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on FOP 

data reported by Regal for the POR. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor–consumption 

rates by publicly available surrogate 

values (except as discussed below). 

In selecting the surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to make them 

delivered prices. We added to each 

Indian import surrogate value, a 

surrogate freight cost calculated from 

the shorter of the reported distance from 

the domestic supplier to the factory or 

the distance from the nearest seaport to 

the factory, where appropriate. See 

Sigma Corp. v. United States, 117 F. 3d 

1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 

For these preliminary results, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we used data from the Indian 

Import Statistics in order to calculate 

surrogate values for most of Regal’s 

material inputs. In selecting the best 

available information for valuing FOPs 

in accordance with section 773(c)(1) of 

the Act, the Department’s practice is to 

select, to the extent practicable, 

surrogate values which are non–export 

average values, most contemporaneous 

with the POR, product–specific, and 

tax–exclusive. See, e.g., Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Negative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances and Postponement of 

Final Determination: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004), unchanged 

in Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

71005 (December 8, 2004). The record 

shows that the Indian import statistics 

represent import data that are 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product–specific, and tax–exclusive. 

Where we could not obtain publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

to the POR with which to value FOPs, 

we adjusted the surrogate values, where 

appropriate, using the Indian Wholesale 

Price Index (‘‘WPI’’) as published in 

OECD Stat by the Organization for 

Economic Development and 

Cooperation. 

To value shrimp larvae for Regal, 

which has an integrated production 

process, the Department valued shrimp 

larvae using an average of the price 

derived from the Nekkanti Sea Foods 

Ltd. financial statement for 04/2002 - 

03/2003, and the price quoted in Fishing 

Chimes, which is an Indian seafood 

industry publication. However, because 

the shrimp larvae prices are dated 

before the POR, we inflated the price to 

be contemporaneous with the POR 

using WPI. 

We valued electricity using price data 

for small, medium, and large industries, 

as published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication titled Electricity Tariff & 

Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated July 2006. These 

electricity rates represent actual 

country–wide, publicly–available 

information on tax–exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Since the rates are dated before the POR, 

we inflated the values to be 

contemporaneous with the POR using 

WPI. See Surrogate Values Memo. 

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), 

we valued direct, indirect, and packing 

labor, using the most recently calculated 

regression–based wage rate, which relies 

on 2005 data. This wage rate can 

currently be found on the Department’s 

website on Import Administration’s 

home page, Import Library, Expected 

Wages of Selected NME Countries, 

revised in May 2008, ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

wages/05wages/05wages–051608.html. 

The source of these wage–rate data on 

the Import Administration’s web site is 

the Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2002, 

ILO (Geneva: 2002), Chapter 5B: Wages 

in Manufacturing. Because this 

regression–based wage rate does not 

separate the labor rates into different 

skill levels or types of labor, we have 

applied the same wage rate to all skill 

levels and types of labor reported by 

Regal. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10033 

8These data have been placed on the record of 

this case and can be found in attachments to the 

Factors Memo. 

To value water, the Department used 

data from the Maharashtra Industrial 

Development Corporation 

(www.midindia.orgwww.midcindia.org) 

since it includes a wide range of 

industrial water tariffs. This source 

provides 386 industrial water rates 

within the Maharashtra province from 

June 2003: 193 of the water rates were 

for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ usage 

category and 193 of the water rates were 

for the ‘‘outside industrial areas’’ usage 

category. Because the value was not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted the rate for inflation. 

We valued truck freight expenses 

using a per–unit average rate calculated 

from data on the Info Banc web site: 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this website contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. Since this value is dated after the 

POR, we deflated the values to be 

contemporaneous with the POR using 

WPI. See Surrogate Values Memo. 

We valued brokerage and handling 

using a simple average of the brokerage 

and handling costs that were reported in 

public submissions that were filed in 

three antidumping duty cases. See 

Surrogate Values Memo. Specifically, 

we averaged the public brokerage and 

handling expenses reported by (a) Agro 

Dutch Industries Ltd. in the 

antidumping duty administrative review 

of certain preserved mushrooms from 

India, (b) Kejirwal Paper Ltd. in the 

LTFV investigation of certain lined 

paper products from India, and (c) Essar 

Steel in the antidumping duty 

administrative review of hot–rolled 

carbon steel flat products from India.8

See Certain Preserved Mushrooms From 

India: Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

10646 (March 2, 2006); Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 

(April 17, 2006) (unchanged in Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India, 71 FR 45012 

(August 8, 2006)), and Certain Hot– 

Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products From 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 2018, 2021 (January 12, 

2006) (unchanged in Certain Hot–Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 

(July 18, 2006)). The Department 

derived the average per–unit amount 

from each source and adjusted each 

average rate for inflation. Finally, the 

Department averaged the average per– 

unit amounts to derive an overall 

average rate for the POR. 

To value factory overhead, sales, 

general and administrative expenses, 

and profit, we relied upon publicly 

available information in the 2007–2008 

annual report of Falcon Marine Exports 

Ltd., an integrated Indian producer of 

subject merchandise. See Surrogate 

Values Memo. 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, 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 

The Department has determined that 

the following preliminary dumping 

margins exist for the period February 1, 

2007, through January 31, 2008: 

HONEY FROM THE PRC 

Manufacturer/Exporter Margin 

Regal ............................ 26.30% 

Shantou Longsheng ..... 26.30% 

PRC–wide Entity 9 ........ 112.81% 

9The PRC-wide entity includes the 464 

companies currently under review that have 

not established their entitlement to a separate 

rate, including Zhanjiang Go-Harvest Aquatic 

Products Co., Ltd. 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these 

preliminary results to the parties within 

five days of the date of publication of 

this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.224(b). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(3)(ii), for the final results of 

this administrative review, interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value FOPs within 20 

days after the date of publication of 

these preliminary results. Interested 

parties must provide the Department 

with supporting documentation for the 

publicly available information to value 

each FOP. Additionally, in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1), for the final 

results of this administrative review, 

interested parties may submit factual 

information to rebut, clarify, or correct 

factual information submitted by an 

interested party less than ten days 

before, on, or after, the applicable 

deadline for submission of such factual 

information. However, the Department 

notes that 19 CFR 351.301(c)(1) permits 

new information only insofar as it 

rebuts, clarifies, or corrects information 

recently placed on the record. The 

Department generally cannot accept the 

submission of additional, previously 

absent–from-the–record alternative 

surrogate value information pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final 

Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(ii). 

Rebuttal briefs and rebuttals to written 

comments, limited to issues raised in 

such briefs or comments, may be filed 

no later than five days after the deadline 

for filing case briefs. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). The Department urges 

interested parties to provide an 

executive summary of each argument 

contained within the case briefs and 

rebuttal briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

which will include the results of its 

analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the 

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by these 

reviews. The Department intends to 

issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 

days after the publication date of the 

final results of this review. In 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 

for Regal we calculated an exporter/ 

importer (or customer)-specific 

assessment rate for the merchandise 

subject to this review. Where the 

respondent has reported reliable entered 

values, we calculated importer (or 

customer)-specific ad valorem rates by 

aggregating the dumping margins 

calculated for all U.S. sales to each 

importer (or customer) and dividing this 

amount by the total entered value of the 

sales to each importer (or customer). See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Where an 

importer (or customer)-specific ad 

valorem rate is greater than de minimis, 

we will apply the assessment rate to the 

entered value of the importer’s/ 

customer’s entries during the POR. See 

19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10034 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

10These include Allied Pacific Group (comprised 

of Allied Pacific Food (Dalian) Co., Ltd.; Allied 

Pacific Aquatic Products (Zhanjiang) Co., Ltd.; 

Zhanjiang Allied Pacific Aquaculture Co., Ltd.; 

Allied Pacific (H.K.) Co., Ltd.; and King Royal 

Investments Ltd.); Gallant Ocean (Nanhai), Ltd.; 

Luk Ka Paper Industrial Ltd.; Shantou Yelin Frozen 

Seafood Co., Ltd.; and Shantou Yuexing Enterprise 

Company. 

Where we do not have entered values 

for all U.S. sales, we calculated a per– 

unit assessment rate by aggregating the 

antidumping duties due for all U.S. 

sales to each importer (or customer) and 

dividing this amount by the total 

quantity sold to that importer (or 

customer). 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 calculated importer 

(or customer)-specific ad valorem ratios 

based on the estimated entered value. 

Where an importer (or customer)- 

specific ad valorem rate is zero or de 

minimis, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate appropriate entries without 

regard to antidumping duties. See 19 

CFR 351.106(c)(2). 

For the companies receiving a 

separate rate that 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 pursuant to 

section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act. 

For those companies for which this 

review has been preliminarily 

rescinded,10 the Department intends to 

assess antidumping duties at rates equal 

to the cash deposit of estimated 

antidumping duties required at the time 

of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, 

for consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2), if the review is 

rescinded for these companies. 

For Yelin/Hilltop, antidumping duties 

shall be assessed at rates equal to the 

cash deposit of estimated antidumping 

duties required at the time of entry, or 

withdrawal from warehouse, for 

consumption, in accordance with 19 

CFR 351.212(c)(2). The Department will 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of this notice. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash–deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results for 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of these final results, as 

provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the 

Act: (1) for subject merchandise 

exported by Regal and Shantou 

Longsheng the cash deposit rate will be 

26.30 percent; (2) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, and thus, are a part of the 

PRC–wide entity, the cash–deposit rate 

will be the PRC–wide rate of 112.81 

percent; and (3) for all non–PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise, the 

cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC supplier of that 

exporter. These deposit requirements 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification of Interested Parties 

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 POR. 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 this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 

CFR 351.213 and 351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: March 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–4900 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

RIN 0648–XN21 

Endangered Species; File No. 14272 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application. 

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that 

Lawrence Wood, Marinelife Center of 

Juno Beach, 14200 U.S. Hwy. #1, Juno 

Beach, Florida, 33408, has applied in 

due form for a permit to take hawksbill 

(Eretmochelys imbricata) sea turtles for 

purposes of scientific research. 

DATES: Written, telefaxed, or e-mail 

comments must be received on or before 

April 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: The application and related 

documents are available for review by 

selecting ‘‘Records Open for Public 

Comment’’ from the Features box on the 

Applications and Permits for Protected 

Species (APPS) home page, https:// 

apps.nmfs.noaa.gov/index.cfm, and 

then selecting File No. 14272 from the 

list of available applications. These 

documents are also available for review 

upon written request or by appointment 

in the following offices: 

Permits, Conservation and Education 

Division, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone 

(301)713–2289; fax (301)427–2521; and 

Southeast Region, NMFS, 263 13th 

Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; 

phone (727)824–5312; fax (727)824– 

5309. 

Written comments or requests for a 

public hearing on this application 

should be mailed to the Chief, Permits, 

Conservation and Education Division, 

F/PR1, Office of Protected Resources, 

NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 

13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Those 

individuals requesting a hearing should 

set forth the specific reasons why a 

hearing on this particular request would 

be appropriate. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

facsimile at (301)427–2521, provided 

the facsimile is confirmed by hard copy 

submitted by mail and postmarked no 

later than the closing date of the 

comment period. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

e-mail. The mailbox address for 

providing e-mail comments is 

NMFS.Pr1Comments@noaa.gov. Include 

in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the following document 

identifier: File No. 14272. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Opay or Malcolm Mohead, 

(301)713–2289. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

subject permit is requested under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.) and the regulations 

governing the taking, importing, and 

exporting of endangered and threatened 

species (50 CFR 222–226). 

The proposed research would 

continue to describe the abundance and 

movements of an aggregation of 

hawksbill sea turtles found on the 

barrier reefs of Palm Beach County, 

Florida. Up to 75 animals would be 

annually captured, measured, flipper 

and passive integrated transponder 

tagged, marked, photographed, tissue 

and blood sampled, and released. Up to 

10 of these animals would also have 

satellite transmitters attached to their 

carapace. The permit would be issued 

for five years. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES