Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 9991 

connection with these preliminary 

results within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.224(b). Interested parties may 

submit case briefs not later than 30 days 

after the date of publication of this 

notice. See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 

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. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). 

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, HCHB 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. 

Regarding Promarisco, because it 

reported the entered value of all of its 

U.S. sales, we will calculate an 

importer–specific ad valorem duty 

assessment rate 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. We will calculate 

a single importer–specific assessment 

rate for Promarisco, consistent with our 

practice in AR2 Final Results; see also 

Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof from 

France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and 

Singapore: Final Results of the 

Antidumping Administrative Reviews, 

Rescission of Administrative Review in 

part, and Determination Not to Revoke 

Order in Part, 68 FR 35623 (June 16, 

2003), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 9B; 

Notice of Final Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Changed Circumstances Review: Certain 

Softwood Lumber Products From 

Canada, 69 FR 75921 (December 20, 

2004), and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 13. 

Regarding Songa, because it reported 

the entered value of all of its U.S. sales, 

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 the responsive companies which 

were not selected for individual 

examination, we will calculate an 

assessment rate based on the weighted 

average of the margin 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 or customer–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. 

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 in effect during the POR 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 

On August 15, 2007, in accordance 

with sections 129(b)(4) and 129(c)(1)(B) 

of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 

(URAA), the U.S. Trade Representative, 

after consulting with the Department 

and Congress, directed the Department 

to implement its determination to 

revoke the antidumping duty order on 

certain frozen warmwater shrimp from 

Ecuador. See Section 129 Final Results. 

Accordingly, the antidumping duty 

order on certain frozen warmwater 

shrimp from Ecuador was revoked 

effective August 15, 2007. As a result, 

the collection of cash deposits of 

antidumping duties on entries of the 

subject merchandise is no longer 

required. 

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. 

March 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–4916 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–533–840 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From India: Preliminary Results and 

Preliminary Partial Rescission 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 (shrimp) from 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
9992 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

1This figure does not include those companies 

for which the Department is rescinding the 

administrative review. 

2The petitioner is the Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade 

Action Committee. 

India with respect to 170 companies.1

The respondents which the Department 

selected for individual review are Devi 

Sea Foods Limited (Devi) and Falcon 

Marine Exports Limited (Falcon). The 

respondents which were not selected for 

individual review are listed in the 

‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’ section 

of this notice. This is the third 

administrative review of this order. The 

period of review (POR) is February 1, 

2007, through January 31, 2008. 

We preliminarily determine that sales 

made by Devi have not been made at 

below normal value (NV), while those 

made by Falcon have. In addition, based 

on the preliminary results for the 

respondents selected for individual 

review, we have preliminarily 

determined a margin for those 

companies that the Department did not 

select for individual review. 

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: 

Elizabeth Eastwood or Henry Almond, 

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) 482–3874 or (202) 482– 

0049, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

In February 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register an 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India. 

See Notice of Amended Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India, 70 FR 5147 (Feb. 1, 

2005) (Shrimp Order). 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 India 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 (Feb. 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 U.S. sales of certain frozen 

warmwater shrimp by numerous 

producers/exporters, the Department 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review for 336 

companies. See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from Brazil, 

Ecuador, India, and Thailand: Notice of 

Initiation of Administrative Reviews, 73 

FR 18754, 18757–18762 (Apr. 7, 2008) 

(Initiation Notice). 

In our initiation notice we indicated 

that we would select mandatory 

respondents for review based upon CBP 

entry data, and that we would limit the 

respondents selected for individual 

review in accordance with section 

777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the Act). See Initiation 

Notice, 73 FR at 18765. In April 2008, 

we received comments on the issue of 

respondent selection from Devi, Falcon, 

and the petitioner.2

In April and May 2008, we received 

statements from 18 companies that 

indicated that they had no shipments of 

subject merchandise to the United 

States during the POR. 

In May 2008, after considering 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, we selected the two largest 

producers/exporters of certain frozen 

warmwater shrimp from India during 

the POR (i.e., Devi and Falcon) for 

individual review in this segment of this 

proceeding (see the May 27, 2008, 

Memorandum to James Maeder from 

Elizabeth Eastwood entitled, ‘‘2007– 

2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review on Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review’’), 

and we issued the antidumping duty 

questionnaire to them. 

In July 2008 we received responses 

from Devi and Falcon to section A of the 

questionnaire (i.e., the section related to 

general information), as well as to 

sections B and C (i.e., the sections 

covering comparison market and U.S. 

sales, respectively) and D (i.e., the 

section covering cost of production 

(COP)). Also in July 2008, the petitioner 

submitted comments regarding the 

appropriate third–country comparison 

market for Falcon, and it withdrew its 

review requests for 144 companies, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 

In September 2008, we selected Japan 

as the third country comparison market 

for Falcon. For a discussion, see the 

September 3, 2008, memorandum to 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, AD/ 

CVD Operations from the team entitled, 

‘‘2007–2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India – 

Selection of the Appropriate Third 

Country Market for Falcon Marine 

Exports Limited’’ (Third Country Market 

Memo). As Devi had only one viable 

comparison market, Canada, no further 

market selection process was necessary 

for Devi. 

Also in September 2008, we requested 

that Falcon provide additional 

information regarding its relationship 

with an affiliated shrimp producer, KR 

Enterprises, in order to determine 

whether it was appropriate to collapse 

these two companies (i.e., treat them as 

a single entity) for purposes of our 

analysis. In addition, we issued a 

supplemental questionnaire covering 

section D to Devi, as well as 

supplemental questionnaires covering 

sections A and D to Falcon. 

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 (Oct. 8, 2008). 

In October 2008, the Department 

issued supplemental questionnaires 

covering sections A through C for Devi 

and sections B and C for Falcon. In 

October and November 2008, Devi and 

Falcon responded to these supplemental 

questionnaires, as well as to the 

supplemental questionnaires issued in 

September 2008, and Falcon also 

provided the additional information 

requested by the Department with 

respect to its relationship with KR 

Enterprises. 

Also in October 2008, the Department 

issued a memorandum indicating that it 

intended to rescind the administrative 

review with respect to 168 respondent 

companies, and it invited comments on 

this action from interested parties. See 

the October 16, 2008 memorandum to 

the file from Elizabeth Eastwood 

entitled, ‘‘Intent to Rescind in Part the 

2007–2008 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review on Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from India’’ (Intent 

to Rescind Memo). In response, the 

Department received comments from: 1) 

Ananda Aqua Exports (AAE), Ananda 

Foods (AF), and Ananda Aqua 

Applications (AAA) (collectively, the 

‘‘Ananda Group’’) objecting to the 

rescission with respect to AF and AAA; 

2) Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 9993 

3The Department did not rescind this review 

with respect to the two Ananda Group Companies 

listed in the Intent to Rescind Memo, based on their 

objection. For further discussion see the 

‘‘Collapsing Certain Respondents’’ section of this 

notice. 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

confirming the proper address for that 

company; 3) 32 U.S. producers opposing 

the rescission with respect to 144 

companies for which the petitioner 

withdrew its review request; and 4) the 

petitioner objecting to the opposition by 

the 32 U.S. producers. 

In November 2008, the Department 

requested, and received, information 

regarding the relationship among the 

Ananda Group during the POR, in order 

to permit the Department to perform a 

collapsing analysis. 

In December 2008, we published a 

notice rescinding the administrative 

review with respect to 166 companies,3

based on the following reasons: 1) 

timely withdrawals of the review 

requests; 2) confirmed statements of no 

shipments during the POR; and/or 3) 

duplicated names and/or addresses in 

our notice of initiation. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 77610 

(Dec. 19, 2008) (Partial Rescission 

Notice). See also the Intent to Rescind 

Memo. In rescinding the review with 

respect to the companies for which the 

petitioner withdrew its review request, 

we disregarded the 32 U.S. producers’ 

opposition because the underlying 

review requests were made on behalf of 

the petitioner, and not on behalf of any 

individual U.S. producer. See Partial 

Rescission Notice, 73 FR at 77612. 

From December 2008 through January 

2009, we conducted a sales verification 

of Devi’s U.S. affiliate, Devi Seafoods, 

Inc., as well as sales and cost 

verifications of Devi and Falcon. 

In February 2009, we requested that 

AAE provide additional information 

about its ownership in order to facilitate 

the Department’s collapsing analysis. 

Also in this month, we determined that 

it was appropriate to collapse Falcon 

and its affiliate KR Enterprises, and thus 

we are treating these companies as the 

same entity for purposes of this 

proceeding. For further discussion, see 

the February 19, 2009, memorandum 

from The Team to James Maeder, 

Director, Office 2, entitled, ‘‘Whether to 

Collapse KR Enterprises and Falcon 

Marine Exports Limited in the 2007– 

2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India’’ (Falcon Collapsing 

Memo). 

In February 2009, at the request of the 

Department, Falcon submitted revised 

U.S. and third country sales databases. 

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 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 

(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. 

Partial Rescission of Review 

As noted above, on April 7, 2008, the 

Department initiated this review with 

respect to 336 companies. With respect 

to two of these companies, Asvini 

Fisheries Limited and Surya Marine 

Exports, we stated that we intended to 

rescind the review for these two 

companies if we found in the final 

results of the 2006–2007 administrative 

review that these companies are the 

successors–in-interest to two additional 

Indian shrimp exporters included in 

this review. See Initiation Notice, 73 FR 

at 18761–18762. In the final results of 

the 2006–2007 administrative review, 

we found Asvini Fisheries Private 

Limited to be the successor–in-interest 

to Asvini Fisheries Limited and found 

Suryamitra Exim (P) Ltd. to be the 

successor–in-interest to Surya Marine 

Exports. See Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From India: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 40492, 

40493–40494 (July 15, 2008) (2006–2007 

Final Results). Accordingly, consistent 

with our stated intention in our 

Initiation Notice, we are rescinding this 

administrative review with respect to 

Asvini Fisheries Limited and Surya 

Marine Exports. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
9994 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

Collapsing Certain Respondents 

A. The Ananda Group 

As noted above, on October 28, 2008, 

AAE informed the Department that it is 

affiliated with two producers/exporters 

of shrimp in India listed in the 

Department’s Intent to Rescind Memo, 

and it requested that the Department: 1) 

maintain the review with respect to 

these two companies; and 2) treat itself 

and these two companies as a single 

entity for purposes of this 

administrative review. 

In order to assess the merits of the 

Ananda Group’s claim, on November 7, 

2008, we requested information 

regarding the relationship between 

AAE, AF, and AAA during the POR. In 

response, on November 25, 2008, the 

Ananda Group provided information 

demonstrating that the three companies 

had numerous common members on 

their boards of directors, and that two of 

the companies shared common 

ownership. Moreover, the Ananda 

Group indicated that the companies had 

intertwined operations via common 

management and shared sales and 

production information. Finally, the 

Ananda Group indicated that two of the 

three companies had production 

facilities capable of producing in–scope 

merchandise, while the third sold in– 

scope merchandise to the United States 

and abroad. 

In February 2009, we requested that 

the Ananda Group provide additional 

information with respect to the 

ownership of the three companies and 

the relationships among the owners. 

This information was not received in 

time to consider for purposes of the 

preliminary results. Nonetheless, we 

intend to consider it for the final results 

and will revise the analysis presented 

below, if necessary. 

After considering the information 

currently on the record, we have 

preliminarily determined that, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.401(f), it is 

appropriate to collapse the companies 

in the Ananda Group for purposes of 

this proceeding because: 1) entities 

within the group are affiliated and two 

of these entities have production 

facilities for identical or similar 

merchandise that would not require 

significant retooling in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities; 

and 2) a significant potential for 

manipulation exists due to common 

ownership, overlapping management 

and board of directors, and intertwined 

operations. For the analysis underlying 

these conclusions, see the March 2, 

2009, memorandum from The Team to 

James Maeder, Director, Office 2, 

entitled, ‘‘Whether to Collapse Ananda 

Aqua Exports, Ananda Foods, and 

Ananda Aqua Applications in the 2007– 

2008 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from India.’’ Therefore, we have 

preliminarily treated the three 

companies as a single entity and 

assigned them the same antidumping 

duty rate (i.e., the weighted–average rate 

assigned to companies not selected for 

individual review) as outlined below. 

B. Falcon 

As noted above, in its July 11, 2008, 

response to section A of the 

questionnaire, Falcon informed the 

Department that it was affiliated during 

the POR with another shrimp producer, 

KR Enterprises. On September 11, 2008, 

we requested further information 

regarding the relationship between 

Falcon and KR Enterprises, in order to 

permit the Department to perform a 

collapsing analysis. In response, on 

October 1, 2008, Falcon stated that the 

two companies are affiliated via familial 

relationships among their directors, 

shareholders, and partners. Further, 

Falcon indicated the two companies 

share administrative and production 

facilities. 

After an analysis of this information, 

we determined that, in accordance with 

19 CFR 351.401(f), it is appropriate to 

collapse these entities for purposes of 

this review because: 1) Falcon and KR 

Enterprises are affiliated and have 

production facilities for identical or 

similar merchandise that would not 

require significant retooling in order to 

restructure manufacturing priorities; 

and 2) a significant potential for 

manipulation exists due to common 

ownership, overlapping management 

and board of directors, and intertwined 

operations. For further discussion, see 

the Falcon Collapsing Memo. Therefore, 

we have treated these companies as a 

single entity and have assigned them the 

antidumping duty rate calculated for 

Falcon, as outlined below. 

Comparisons to Normal Value 

To determine whether sales of certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India 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. 

Pursuant to sections 773(a)(1)(B)(i) 

and 777A(d)(2) of the Act, for Devi and 

Falcon, we compared the EPs or CEPs of 

individual U.S. transactions, as 

applicable, to the weighted–average NV 

of the foreign like product in the 

appropriate corresponding calendar 

month 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)(A) 

of the Act, we considered all products 

produced by Devi and Falcon 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 

Canada (for Devi) and Japan (for Falcon) 

within the contemporaneous window 

period, which extends from three 

months prior to the month of the first 

U.S. sale until two months after the 

month of the last U.S. 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, according to section 

771(16)(B) of the Act, we compared U.S. 

sales to sales of the most similar foreign 

like product made in the ordinary 

course of trade. For Devi and Falcon, 

where there were no sales of identical 

or similar merchandise, we made 

product comparisons using constructed 

value (CV). See section 773(a)(4) of the 

Act. 

In making the product comparisons, 

we matched foreign like products based 

on the physical characteristics reported 

by Devi and Falcon 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 Falcon, and 

for certain U.S. sales made by Devi, we 

used EP methodology, in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, because 

the subject merchandise was sold by the 

producer/exporter outside of the United 

States 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 the remaining U.S. sales made by 

Devi, we calculated CEP in accordance 

with section 772(b) of the Act because 

the subject merchandise was sold for the 

account of this company by its 

subsidiary in the United States to 

unaffiliated purchasers. With respect to 

one CEP sale, however, we discovered at 

verification that Devi had inadvertently 

failed to include this transaction in its 

U.S. sales listing. Therefore, we based 

the margin for this transaction on facts 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 9995 

5Where 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. 

available. As facts available, we 

assigned the weighted–average margin 

calculated on Devi’s reported U.S. sales, 

in accordance with our practice. See, 

e.g., Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From Thailand: Final Results and Final 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 50933 

(Aug. 29, 2008), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 14. 

We revised the data reported by Devi to 

take into account minor corrections 

found at verification. 

A. Devi 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c). We also made deductions 

from the starting price for foreign inland 

freight expenses, export inspection 

agency (EIA) fees, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, various foreign 

miscellaneous shipment charges, 

international freight expenses, terminal 

handling charges, marine insurance 

expenses, U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees), U.S. 

brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. 

warehousing expenses, and U.S. inland 

freight expenses, where appropriate, in 

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

the Act. 

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 based CEP on 

the packed delivered prices to 

unaffiliated purchasers in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

adjustments for discounts in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.401(c). 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, EIA fees, foreign brokerage 

and handling expenses, various foreign 

miscellaneous shipment charges, 

international freight expenses, terminal 

handling charges, marine insurance 

expenses, U.S. customs duties 

(including harbor maintenance fees and 

merchandise processing fees), U.S. 

brokerage and handling expenses, U.S. 

inland freight expenses (including both 

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 (i.e., 

imputed credit expenses and other 

direct selling expenses), commissions, 

sales and marketing allowance 

expenditures, and indirect selling 

expenses (including inventory carrying 

costs and other indirect selling 

expenses). Finally, where commissions 

were paid in the U.S. market but not in 

the comparison market, we offset these 

commissions by the lesser of: 1) the 

amount of commission paid in the U.S. 

market; or 2) the amount of indirect 

selling expenses (including inventory 

carrying costs) incurred in the 

comparison market. 

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 Devi and its U.S. affiliate on their 

sales of the subject merchandise in the 

United States and the profit associated 

with those sales. 

B. Falcon 

We based EP on packed prices to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where appropriate, we made 

deductions from the starting price for 

discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c). We also made deductions 

from the starting price for cold storage 

expenses, loading and unloading 

expenses, trailer hire expenses, foreign 

inland freight expenses, port charges, 

export survey charges, terminal and 

handling charges, other miscellaneous 

shipment charges, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, international freight 

expenses, marine insurance expenses, 

U.S. customs duties (including harbor 

maintenance fees and merchandise 

processing fees), and U.S. brokerage and 

handling expenses, where appropriate, 

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

of the Act. 

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. 

We determined that the aggregate 

volume of home market sales of the 

foreign like product for Devi and Falcon 

was insufficient to permit a proper 

comparison with U.S. sales of the 

subject merchandise. For Devi, as noted 

above, we used Canada as the 

comparison market because this was 

Devi’s only viable comparison market 

during the POR. For Falcon, we selected 

Japan as the comparison market 

because, among other things, sales of 

foreign like product in Japan were the 

most similar to the subject merchandise. 

See the Third Country Market Memo for 

further discussion. Therefore, we used 

sales to Canada and Japan as the basis 

for comparison market sales for Devi 

and Falcon, respectively, in accordance 

with section 773(a)(1)(C) of the Act and 

19 CFR 351.404. 

B. 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. 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 (Nov. 19, 1997) 

(Plate from South Africa). In order to 

determine whether the comparison 

market 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),5 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 Tech., Inc. 

v. United States, 243 F.3d 1301, 1314– 

16 (Fed. Cir. 2001). 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
9996 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

When the Department is unable to 

match U.S. 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. sale 

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 possible, 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 possible), 

the Department shall grant a CEP offset, 

as provided in section 773(a)(7)(B) of 

the Act. See, e.g., 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. Devi 

Devi reported that it made sales 

through two channels of distribution in 

the United States (i.e., EP sales made 

directly to unaffiliated customers and 

CEP sales via an affiliated reseller); 

however, it stated that the selling 

activities it performed and the relative 

level of intensity of each selling activity 

did not vary by channel of distribution. 

Devi reported performing the following 

selling functions for its U.S. sales: sales 

planning, personnel training, sales 

promotion, packing, inventory 

maintenance in India, handling of sales 

inquiries, order processing, freight and 

delivery services (including pre– 

shipment inspection, foreign 

transportation, and export customs 

clearance), extension of credit to U.S. 

customers, providing discounts and 

rebates, and providing post–sale 

warranties and guarantees. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

four selling function categories for 

analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) 

freight and delivery; 3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and, 4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, based on the selling 

functions, we find that Devi performed 

sales and marketing, freight and 

delivery services, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

warranty and technical support for all 

U.S. sales. Because Devi’s selling 

activities did not vary by distribution 

channel, we preliminarily determine 

that there is one LOT in the U.S. market. 

With respect to Canada, Devi reported 

that it made sales through a single 

channel of distribution (i.e., sales made 

directly to unaffiliated customers) and 

that all selling functions were 

performed at the same levels of intensity 

as in the U.S. market. We examined the 

selling activities performed for third 

country sales and found that Devi 

performed the following selling 

functions: sales planning, personnel 

training, sales promotion, packing, 

inventory maintenance in India, 

handling of sales inquiries, order 

processing, freight and delivery services 

(including pre–shipment inspection and 

foreign transportation), extension of 

credit to Canadian customers, providing 

discounts and rebates, and providing 

post–sale warranties and guarantees. 

Accordingly, based on the selling 

functions noted above, we find that Devi 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, inventory 

maintenance and warehousing, and 

warranty and technical services for third 

country sales. Because all third country 

sales are made through a single 

distribution channel and the selling 

activities to Devi’s customers did not 

vary within this channel, we 

preliminarily determine that there is 

one LOT in the third country market for 

Devi. 

Finally, we compared the U.S. LOT to 

the third country market LOT and found 

that the selling functions performed for 

U.S. and third country market 

customers do not differ, as Devi 

performed the same selling functions at 

the same relative level of intensity in 

both markets. Therefore, we determine 

that sales to the U.S. and third country 

markets during the POR were made at 

the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT 

adjustment or CEP offset is warranted. 

2. Falcon 

Falcon reported that it made EP sales 

in the U.S. market to trading companies 

and distributors. Because Falcon 

reported no difference in the selling 

activities it performed or the relative 

level of intensity of each selling activity 

for these two customer categories, we 

find that there is only one channel of 

distribution for Falcon’s EP sales. We 

examined the selling activities 

performed for this channel and found 

that Falcon performed the following 

selling functions: customer contact and 

price negotiation; order processing; 

arranging for freight and the provision 

of customs clearance/brokerage services 

(in India and the United States); cold 

storage and inventory maintenance; 

quality–assurance-related activities; and 

banking–related activities. These selling 

activities can be generally grouped into 

four selling function categories for 

analysis: 1) sales and marketing; 2) 

freight and delivery; 3) inventory 

maintenance and warehousing; and 4) 

warranty and technical support. 

Accordingly, based on the selling 

functions, we find that Falcon 

performed sales and marketing, freight 

and delivery services, and inventory 

maintenance and warehousing for 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 third country 

market, Falcon reported that it made 

sales to trading companies and that all 

selling functions were performed at the 

same levels of intensity as in the U.S. 

market. We examined the selling 

activities performed for third country 

sales, and found that Falcon performed 

the following selling functions: 

customer contact and price negotiation; 

order processing; arranging for freight 

and the provision of customs clearance/ 

brokerage services (in India); cold 

storage and inventory maintenance; 

quality–assurance-related activities; and 

banking–related activities. Accordingly, 

based on the selling functions, we find 

that Falcon performed sales and 

marketing, freight and delivery services, 

and inventory maintenance and 

warehousing for all third country sales. 

Because all third country sales are made 

through a single distribution channel 

and the selling activities to Falcon’s 

customers did not vary within this 

channel, we preliminarily determine 

that there is one LOT in the third 

country market for Falcon. 

Finally, we compared the EP LOT to 

the third country market LOT and found 

that the selling functions performed for 

U.S. and third country market 

customers do not differ, as Falcon 

performed the same selling functions at 

the same relative level of intensity in 

both markets. Therefore, we determine 

that sales to the U.S. and third country 

markets during the POR were made at 

the same LOT, and as a result, no LOT 

adjustment is warranted. 

C. Cost of Production Analysis 

We found that Devi and Falcon made 

sales below the COP in the most 

recently completed segment of this 

proceeding, as of the date of initiation 

of this review, in which each 

respondent was examined, and such 

sales were disregarded. See Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from India: 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 9997 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 72 FR 52055, 52058 (Sept. 12, 

2007) (finding that Falcon made below– 

cost sales); and 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 India, 

69 FR 76916 (Dec. 23, 2004) (LTFV Final 

Determination) (finding that Devi made 

below–cost sales). Thus, in accordance 

with section 773(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act, 

there are reasonable grounds to believe 

or suspect that Devi and Falcon 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 third country selling 

expenses). 

The Department relied on the COP 

data submitted by each respondent in its 

most recently submitted cost database 

for the COP calculation, except for the 

following instances: 

a. Devi 

i. In calculating Devi’s G&A expense 

ratio, we included the loss on the 

sale of fixed assets in the 

numerator, and we offset the 

numerator for proceeds from the 

sale of shrimp heads and shell 

waste. 

ii. We recalculated Devi’s financial 

expense ratio to reclassify certain 

Export Credit Guarantee 

Corporation (ECGC) fees related to 

sales activity as selling expenses. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the memorandum from 

Laurens van Houten, Senior 

Accountant, to Neal M. Halper, Director, 

Office of Accounting, entitled, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results – Devi Sea Foods 

Limited,’’ dated March 2, 2009. 

b. Falcon 

i. We recalculated Falcon’s G&A 

expense ratios to: 1) include wealth 

and fringe benefit taxes as G&A 

expenses; and 2) use cost of goods 

sold as the denominator. 

ii. We recalculated Falcon’s financial 

expense ratio to use cost of goods 

sold as the denominator. 

iii. We recalculated KR Enterprises’ 

G&A expense ratio to: 1) include 

fringe benefit taxes and insurance 

expenses as G&A expenses; and 2) 

use cost of goods sold as the 

denominator. 

iv. We recalculated KR’s financial 

expense ratio to: 1) include letter of 

credit opening charges as financial 

expenses; and 2) use cost of goods 

sold as the denominator. 

For further discussion of these 

adjustments, see the memorandum from 

Ji Young Oh, Senior Accountant, to Neal 

M. Halper, Director, Office of 

Accounting, entitled, ‘‘Cost of 

Production and Constructed Value 

Calculation Adjustments for the 

Preliminary Results Falcon Marine 

Exports Limited,’’ dated March 2, 2009. 

2. Test of Comparison Market Sales 

Prices 

On a product–specific basis, we 

compared the adjusted weighted– 

average COP to the comparison market 

sales prices of the foreign like product, 

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 (inclusive of 

billing adjustments, where appropriate) 

were exclusive of any applicable 

movement charges, discounts, direct 

and indirect selling expenses and 

packing expenses. 

3. Results of the COP Test 

In determining whether to disregard 

third country sales made at prices below 

the COP, we examined, in accordance 

with sections 773(b)(1)(A) and (B) of 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. In 

accordance with section 773(b)(2)(C)(i) 

of the Act, where less than 20 percent 

of the respondent’s third country 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 when: 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 products, 

more than 20 percent of Devi’s and 

Falcon’s third country 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 

third country sales in the ordinary 

course of trade, we compared CEPs or 

EPs, as appropriate, to CV in accordance 

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

‘‘Calculation of Normal Value Based on 

Constructed Value’’ section below. 

D. Calculation of Normal Value Based 

on Comparison Market Prices 

1. Devi 

For Devi, we calculated NV based on 

delivered prices to unaffiliated 

customers in Canada. We made 

adjustments to the starting price, where 

appropriate, for discounts in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.401(c). We also made 

deductions for foreign inland freight 

expenses, foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses, various foreign 

miscellaneous shipment charges and 

international freight expenses 

(including terminal handling charges) 

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

For comparisons to EP sales, 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 direct selling expenses 

(including bank charges, ECGC fees, EIA 

fees, imputed credit expenses, and other 

direct selling expenses), and 

commissions. 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. See 

19 CFR 351.410(e). 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. Id. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
9998 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

6This rate is based on the weighted average of the 

margins calculation for those companies selected 

for individual review, excluding de minimis 

margins or margins based entirely on adverse facts 

available (AFA). 

For comparisons to CEP sales, in 

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

of the Act and 19 CFR 351.410, we 

deducted from NV direct selling 

expenses (i.e., imputed credit expenses 

and other direct selling expenses), 

commissions, sales and marketing 

allowance expenditures, and indirect 

selling expenses (including inventory 

carrying costs and other indirect selling 

expenses). 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. See 

19 CFR 351.410(e). If commissions were 

granted in the comparison market but 

not in the U.S. market, we made an 

upward adjustment to NV following the 

same methodology. Id. 

For all price–to-price comparisons, 

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. 

2. Falcon 

We based NV for Falcon on delivered 

prices to unaffiliated customers in 

Japan. We made adjustments, where 

appropriate, to the starting price for 

discounts in accordance with 19 CFR 

351.401(c). We also made deductions, 

where appropriate, from the starting 

price for cold storage expenses, loading 

and unloading expenses, trailer hire 

expenses, foreign inland freight 

expenses, port charges, export survey 

charges, terminal and handling charges, 

foreign miscellaneous shipment charges, 

foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses, and international freight 

expenses, under section 773(a)(6)(B)(ii) 

of the Act. 

In addition, 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 commissions, 

imputed credit expenses, bank fees, EIA 

fees, ECGC premiums, outside 

inspection/lab expenses, letter of credit 

amendment charges, and other 

miscellaneous selling expenses. For 

those U.S. sales for which Falcon had 

not received payment as of the date of 

the sales verification, we recalculated 

U.S. credit expenses using the date first 

day of verification as the date of 

payment. Finally, 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 

(including inventory carrying costs) 

incurred in the comparison market. See 

19 CFR 351.410(e). If commissions were 

granted in the comparison market but 

not in the U.S. market, we made an 

upward adjustment to NV following the 

same methodology. Id. 

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. 

E. 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 

which we could not determine the NV 

based on comparison market sales 

because all sales of the comparable 

products failed the COP test, we based 

NV on CV. 

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 selling, general, and administrative 

(SG&A) expenses, profit, and U.S. 

packing costs. For each respondent, we 

calculated the cost of materials and 

fabrication based on the methodology 

described in the ‘‘Cost of Production 

Analysis’’ section, above. 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. 

We made adjustments to CV for 

differences in circumstances of sale in 

accordance with section 773(a)(6)(iii) 

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

351.410. For comparisons to EP, we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

by deducting direct selling expenses 

incurred on comparison market sales 

from, and adding U.S. direct selling 

expenses to, CV. See 19 CFR 351.410(c). 

For comparisons to Devi’s CEP, we 

made circumstance–of-sale adjustments 

by deducting comparison market direct 

selling expenses from CV. Id. We also 

made adjustments, when applicable, for 

comparison market indirect selling 

expenses to offset U.S. commissions in 

EP and CEP comparisons. See 19 CFR 

351.410(e). 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars for all spot transactions by 

Devi and Falcon 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. In 

addition, both Devi and Falcon reported 

that they purchased forward exchange 

contracts which were used to convert 

the currency in which certain sales 

transactions were made into home 

market currency. Under 19 CFR 

351.415(b), if a currency transaction on 

forward markets is directly linked to an 

export sale under consideration, the 

Department is directed to use the 

exchange rate specified with respect to 

such foreign currency in the forward 

sale agreement to convert the foreign 

currency. See LTFV Final Determination 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 6; see also 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from 

India: Preliminary Results and 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 12103, 12113 (Mar. 6, 

2008), unchanged in 2006–2007 Final 

Results. Therefore, for Devi and Falcon 

we used the reported forward exchange 

rates for currency conversions where 

applicable. 

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 

Devi Sea Foods Limited ............. 0.39 

Falcon Marine Exports Limited/ 

KR Enterprises ........................ 0.79 

Review–Specific Average Rate 

Applicable to the Following 

Companies:6

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent 

Margin 

Abad Fisheries ............................ 0.79 

Accelerated Freeze–Drying Co. 0.79 

Allana Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. .... 0.79 

Allanasons Ltd. ........................... 0.79 

AMI Enterprises .......................... 0.79 

Amulya Sea Foods ..................... 0.79 

Anand Aqua Exports .................. 0.79 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 9999 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent 

Margin 

Ananda Aqua Exports (P) Ltd./ 

Ananda Foods/Ananda Aqua 

Applications ............................. 0.79 

Andaman Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. ..... 0.79 

Angelique Intl .............................. 0.79 

Anjaneya Seafoods .................... 0.79 

Apex Exports .............................. 0.79 

Asvini Exports ............................. 0.79 

Asvini Fisheries Private Limited 0.79 

Avanti Feeds Limited .................. 0.79 

Ayshwarya Seafood Private Limited .......................................... 0.79 

Baby Marine International .......... 0.79 

Baby Marine Sarass ................... 0.79 

Bhatsons Aquatic Products ........ 0.79 

Bhavani Seafoods ...................... 0.79 

Bijaya Marine Products .............. 0.79 

Blue Water Foods & Exports P. 

Ltd. .......................................... 0.79 

Bluefin Enterprises ..................... 0.79 

Bluepark Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. ....... 0.79 

BMR Exports .............................. 0.79 

Britto Exports .............................. 0.79 

Calcutta Seafoods ...................... 0.79 

Calcutta Seafoods Pvt. Ltd. ........ 0.79 

Castlerock Fisheries Ltd. ............ 0.79 

Chemmeens (Regd) ................... 0.79 

Choice Canning Company ......... 0.79 

Choice Trading Corporation Pvt. 

Ltd. .......................................... 0.79 

Coastal Corporation Ltd. ............ 0.79 

Corlim Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. 0.79 

Coreline Exports ......................... 0.79 

Devi Fisheries Limited ................ 0.79 

Digha Seafood Exports .............. 0.79 

Esmario Export Enterprises ........ 0.79 

Exporter Coreline Exports .......... 0.79 

Five Star Marine Exports Private 

Limited ..................................... 0.79 

Forstar Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd. .. 0.79 

Frigerio Conserva Allana Limited 0.79 

Frontline Exports Pvt. Ltd. .......... 0.79 

G A Randerian Ltd. .................... 0.79 

Gadre Marine Exports ................ 0.79 

Galaxy Maritech Exports P. Ltd. 0.79 

Gayatri Seafoods ........................ 0.79 

Geo Aquatic Products (P) Ltd. ... 0.79 

Geo Seafoods ............................. 0.79 

Grandtrust Overseas (P) Ltd. ..... 0.79 

GVR Exports Pvt. Ltd. ................ 0.79 

HIC ABF Special Foods Pvt. Ltd. 0.79 

Haripriya Marine Export Pvt. Ltd. 0.79 

Hindustan Lever, Ltd. ................. 0.79 

Hiravata Ice & Cold Storage ...... 0.79 

Hiravati Exports Pvt. Ltd. ............ 0.79 

Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. 

(located at Jawar Naka, 

Porbandar, Gujarat – 360 575, 

India) ....................................... 0.79 

Hiravati International Pvt. Ltd. 

(located at APM–Mafco Yard, 

Sector – 18 Vashi, Navi, 

Mumbai – 400 705, India) ....... 0.79 

IFB Agro Industries Limited ........ 0.79 

Indian Aquatic Products ............. 0.79 

Indo Aquatics .............................. 0.79 

Innovative Foods Limited ........... 0.79 

International Freezefish Exports 0.79 

Interseas ..................................... 0.79 

ITC Ltd. ....................................... 0.79 

Jagadeesh Marine Exports ......... 0.79 

Jaya Satya Marine Exports ........ 0.79 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent 

Margin 

Jaya Satya Marine Exports Pvt. 

Ltd. .......................................... 0.79 

Jayalakshmi Sea Foods Private 

Limited ..................................... 0.79 

Jinny Marine Traders .................. 0.79 

Jiya Packagings .......................... 0.79 

K R M Marine Exports Ltd. ......... 0.79 

Kalyanee Marine ......................... 0.79 

Kay Kay Exports ......................... 0.79 

Kings Marine Products ............... 0.79 

Koluthara Exports Ltd. ................ 0.79 

Konark Aquatics & Exports Pvt. 

Ltd. .......................................... 0.79 

Libran Cold Storages (P) Ltd. .... 0.79 

Magnum Estate Private Limited 0.79 

Magnum Export .......................... 0.79 

Magnum Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. .... 0.79 

Malabar Arabian Fisheries ......... 0.79 

Malnad Exports Pvt. Ltd. ............ 0.79 

Mangala Marine Exim India Private Ltd. .................................. 0.79 

Mangala Sea Products ............... 0.79 

Manufacturer Falcon Marine Exports ........................................ 0.79 

MSC Marine Exporters ............... 0.79 

MTR Foods ................................. 0.79 

Naga Hanuman Fish Packers .... 0.79 

Naik Frozen Foods ..................... 0.79 

Navayuga Exports Ltd. ............... 0.79 

Nekkanti Sea Foods Limited ...... 0.79 

NGR Aqua International ............. 0.79 

Nila Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. ............ 0.79 

Overseas Marine Export ............. 0.79 

Penver Products (P) Ltd. ............ 0.79 

Pijikay International Exports P 

Ltd. .......................................... 0.79 

Pisces Seafood International ...... 0.79 

Premier Seafoods Exim (P) Ltd. 0.79 

Raa Systems Pvt. Ltd. ................ 0.79 

Raju Exports ............................... 0.79 

Ram’s Assorted Cold Storage 

Ltd. .......................................... 0.79 

Raunaq Ice & Cold Storage ....... 0.79 

Raysons Aquatics Pvt. Ltd. ........ 0.79 

Razban Seafoods Ltd. ................ 0.79 

RBT Exports ............................... 0.79 

Riviera Exports Pvt. Ltd. ............. 0.79 

Rohi Marine Private Ltd. ............. 0.79 

RVR Marine Products Private 

Limited ..................................... 0.79 

S A Exports ................................ 0.79 

S Chanchala Combines .............. 0.79 

S & S Seafoods .......................... 0.79 

Safa Enterprises ......................... 0.79 

Sagar Foods ............................... 0.79 

Sagar Grandhi Exports Pvt. Ltd. 0.79 

Sagarvihar Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. .... 0.79 

Sai Marine Exports Pvt. Ltd. ...... 0.79 

Sai Sea Foods ............................ 0.79 

Sai Sea Foods a.k.a. Sai Marine 

Exports Pvt. Ltd. ..................... 0.79 

Sandhya Aqua Exports Pvt. Ltd. 0.79 

Sandhya Aqua Exports ............... 0.79 

Sandhya Marines Limited ........... 0.79 

Santhi Fisheries & Exports Ltd. .. 0.79 

Satya Seafoods Private Limited 0.79 

Sawant Food Products ............... 0.79 

Seagold Overseas Pvt. Ltd. ....... 0.79 

Selvam Exports Private Limited 0.79 

Shippers Exports ........................ 0.79 

Shroff Processed Food & Cold 

ZStorage P Ltd. ....................... 0.79 

Silver Seafood ............................ 0.79 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent 

Margin 

Sita Marine Exports .................... 0.79 

Sprint Exports Pvt. Ltd. .............. 0.79 

Sri Chandrakantha Marine Exports, Ltd. ................................ 0.79 

Sri Sakkthi Cold Storage ............ 0.79 

Sri Sakthi Marine Products P 

Ltd. .......................................... 0.79 

Sri Satya Marine Exports ........... 0.79 

Sri Venkata Padmavathi Marine 

Foods Pvt. Ltd. ........................ 0.79 

SSF Ltd. ...................................... 0.79 

Star Agro Marine Exports Private 

Limited ..................................... 0.79 

Sun Bio–Technology Ltd. ........... 0.79 

Suryamitra Exim (P) Ltd. ............ 0.79 

Suvarna Rekha Exports Private 

Limited ..................................... 0.79 

Suvarna Rekha Marines P Ltd. .. 0.79 

TBR Exports Pvt Ltd. .................. 0.79 

Teekay Maine P. Ltd .................. 0.79 

The Kadalkanny Group 

(Kadalkanny Frozen Foods, 

Edhayam Frozen Foods Pvt. 

Ltd., Diamond Seafoods Exports, and Theva & Company) 0.79 

The Liberty Group (Devi Marine 

Food Exports Private Limited/ 

Kader Exports Private Limited/ 

Kader Investment and Trading 

Company Private Limited/Liberty Frozen Foods Pvt. Ltd./ 

Liberty Oil Mills Ltd./Premier 

Marine Products/Universal 

Cold Storage Private Limited) 0.79 

The Waterbase Limited .............. 0.79 

Tejaswani Enterprises ................ 0.79 

Usha Seafoods ........................... 0.79 

V.S Exim Pvt Ltd. ....................... 0.79 

Veejay Impex .............................. 0.79 

Victoria Marine & Agro Exports 

Ltd. .......................................... 0.79 

Vinner Marine ............................. 0.79 

Vishal Exports ............................. 0.79 

Wellcome Fisheries Limited ....... 0.79 

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(c), 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. See 19 CFR 

351.309(d). 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. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2). 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), 

interested parties who wish to request a 

hearing, or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
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