Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10009 

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

cash deposit requirement for certain producers/ 

exporters in accordance with the Implementation of 

the Findings of the WTO Panel in United States 

Antidumping Measure on Shrimp from Thailand: 

Notice of Determination under Section 129 of the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial 

Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Thailand, 74 FR 

5638 (January 30, 2009) (Section 129 

Determination). 

1The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee is 

the Petitioner. 

2Some of these requests created an overlap in the 

number of companies upon which an 

administrative review was requested. 

during the POR produced by companies 

included in these final results of review 

for which the reviewed companies did 

not know that the merchandise they 

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

trading company, or exporter) was 

destined for the United States. In such 

instances, we will instruct CBP to 

liquidate unreviewed entries at the all– 

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

5.95 percent) if there is no rate for the 

intermediary involved in the 

transaction. See Assessment Policy 

Notice for a full discussion of this 

clarification. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective for all 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results of 

this administrative review, as provided 

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

cash deposit rate for each specific 

company listed above7 will be that 

established in the final results of this 

review, except if the rate is less than 

0.50 percent, and therefore, de minimis 

within the meaning of 19 CFR 

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

deposit rate will be zero; 2) for 

previously reviewed or investigated 

companies not participating in this 

review, the cash deposit rate will 

continue to be the company–specific 

rate published for the most recent 

period; 3) if the exporter is not a firm 

covered in this review or the original 

LTFV investigation, but the 

manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; and 4) the cash 

deposit rate for all other manufacturers 

or exporters will be 5.34 percent, the 

all–others rate made effective by the 

Section 129 determination. These 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and notice 

are published in accordance with 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.221. 

Dated: March 2, 2009. 

Ronald K. Lorentzen, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

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

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–552–802 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial 

Rescission and Request for 

Revocation, In Part, of the Third 

Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘the Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

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

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

through January 31, 2008. As discussed 

below, we preliminarily determine that 

sales have been made below normal 

value (‘‘NV’’). If these preliminary 

results are adopted in our final results 

of review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

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

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the POR for which 

the importer–specific assessment rates 

are above de minimis. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 9, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–6905. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

General Background 

On February 1, 2005, the Department 

published in the Federal Register the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam. See 

Notice of Amended Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Certain 

Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 70 FR 

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

February 4, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on frozen 

warmwater shrimp from Vietnam for the 

period February 1, 2007, through 

January 31, 2008. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 6477 (February 4, 2008). 

On February 29, 2008, we received 

requests to conduct administrative 

reviews of 145 companies from 

Petitioner,1 two companies from the 

Louisiana Shrimp Association (‘‘LSA’’), 

and requests by certain Vietnamese 

companies.2 See Notice of Initiation of 

Administrative Reviews of the 

Antidumping Duty Orders on Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam and the People’s 

Republic of China 73 FR 18739 (April 7, 

2008) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On April 7, 2008, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of 

170 producers/exporters of subject 

merchandise from Vietnam. See 

Initiation Notice. However, after 

accounting for duplicate names and 

additional trade names associated with 

certain exporters, the number of 

companies upon which we initiated is 

actually 110 companies/groups. On 

April 8, 2008, the Department posted 

the separate rate certification and 

separate rate application on its website 

for Vietnamese exporters for whom a 

review was initiated to complete and 

submit to the Department. 

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

May 7, 2008, the Department received 

letters from Vinh Hoan Corporation 

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

Hoan’’), Kim Anh Co., Ltd. (‘‘Kim 

Anh’’), Quoc Viet Seaproducts 

Processing Trading Import and Export 

Co., Ltd., (‘‘Quoc Viet’’), and C.P. 

Vietnam Livestock Company Limited 

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

that they made no shipments of subject 

merchandise during the POR. 

Of the 110 companies/groups upon 

which we initiated an administrative 

review, 78 companies did not submit 

separate rate certifications or 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10010 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

3These were: Grobest & I-Mei Industrial 

(Vietnam) Co., Ltd.; and Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXICO’’); Cadovimex Seafood 

Import-Export and Processing Joint-Stock Company 

(‘‘Cadovimex-Vietnam’’); Cafatex Fishery Joint 

Stock Corporation (‘‘CAFATEX CORP’’); Camau 

Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export 

Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’); Can Tho Agricultural 

and Animal Products Import Export Company 

(‘‘CATACO’’); Cuulong Seaproducts Company 

(‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’); Danang Seaproducts Import 

Export Corporation (and its affiliate Tho Quong 

Seafood Processing and Export Company) 

(‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’); Minh Hai Export Frozen 

Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Minh 

Hai Jostoco’’); Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods 

Processing Company (‘‘Sea Minh Hai’’); Minh Phu 

Seafood Export Import Corporation (and its 

affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat 

Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively ‘‘Minh Phu Group’’); 

Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise; Nha Trang 

Seaproduct Company (‘‘NHA TRANG 

SEAFOODS’’); Phu Cuong Seafood Processing & 

Import-Export Co., Ltd.; Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘FIMEX’’); Soc Trang Aquatic Products 

and General Import-Export Company 

(‘‘STAPIMEX’’); Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and 

Trading Corportion (and its affiliates Frozen 

Seafoods Fty, Frozen Seafoods Factor No. 32, 

Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory); UTXI Aquatic 

Products Processing Company; Viet Foods Co., Ltd.; 

Vinh Loi Import Export Company (‘‘VIMEX’’); 

Coastal Fisheries Development Corporation 

(‘‘COFIDEC’’); Investment Commerce Fisheries 

Corporation (‘‘INCOMFISH’’); Nha Trang Fisheries 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang FISCO’’); and 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’). 

4Minh Phu Group includes the following 

companies: Minh Phu Seafood Export Import 

Corporation (and affiliated Minh Qui Seafood Co., 

Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.); Minh Phu 

Seafood Corporation; Minh Phu Seafood Corp.; 

Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd.; Minh Qui Seafood; 

Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.; Minh Phat Seafood. 

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

includes the telson and the uropods. 

applications. 28 companies submitted 

separate–rate certifications, and four 

companies stated that they did not 

export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. The 

Department addresses the review status 

of each grouping of companies below. 

Respondent Selection 

On April 8, 2008, the Department 

placed on the record data obtained from 

CBP with respect to the selection of 

respondents, inviting comments from 

interested parties. See Letter from the 

Department to Interested Parties, re: 

CBP data for respondent selection, dated 

April 8, 2008. On April 21, 2008, 

Petitioner provided comments on the 

Department’s respondent selection 

methodology. On April 22, 2008, a 

number of Vietnamese companies3

provided comments on the 

Department’s respondent selection 

methodology. On April 24, 2008, 

Petitioner provided additional 

comments with respect to the 

Department’s respondent selection 

methodology. 

On June 9, 2008, the Department 

issued its respondent selection 

memorandum. Based upon section 

777A(c)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 

as amended, (‘‘the Act’’), the 

Department selected Camimex, Minh 

Phu Group4 (‘‘MPG’’), and Phuong Nam 

Co., Ltd. for individual review 

(hereinafter ‘‘mandatory respondents’’) 

because they were the largest exporters, 

by volume, within the CBP data. See 

Memorandum to James C. Doyle, Office 

Director, Office 9, from Paul Walker, 

Senior Analyst, Re: Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Selection of 

Respondents for Individual Review 

(‘‘Respondent Selection Memo’’). 

Questionnaires 

On June 9, 2008, the Department 

issued its non–market economy 

questionnaire to the mandatory 

respondents, Camimex, MPG, and 

Phuong Nam. Camimex, MPG, and 

Phuong Nam responded to the 

Department’s non–market economy 

questionnaire and subsequent 

supplemental questionnaires between 

July 2008 and February 2009. 

Extension of the Preliminary Results 

On September 18, 2008, the 

Department extended the deadline for 

the preliminary results until March 2, 

2009. See Third Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results, 73 FR 

54139 (September 18, 2008). 

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,5

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 (HTS 

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 

(HTS subheadings 0306.23.00.20 and 

0306.23.00.40); 4) shrimp and prawns in 

prepared meals (HTS subheading 

1605.20.05.10); 5) dried shrimp and 

prawns; 6) canned warmwater shrimp 

and prawns (HTS 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 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10011 

6The no-shipments-inquiry to CBP is at http:// 

addcvd.cbp.gov/ 

index.asp?docID=9035204&qu=&vw=detail. 

7On February 18, 2009, and February 19, 2009, 

the Department released under administrative 

protective order (‘‘APO’’) the proprietary CBP data 

to counsel for Kim Anh and CP Vietnam, 

respectively. See Memoranda to the File from Irene 

Gorelik, Senior International Trade Compliance 

Analyst; re: Kim Anh Response Deadline and CP 

Vietnam No Shipments Inquiry, dated February 18, 

2009, and February 19, 2009, respectively. 

8These companies are: AAAS Logistics; Agrimex; 

Amerasian Shipping Logistics Corp.; American 

Container Line; An Giang Fisheries Import and 

Export Joint Stock Company (Agifish); An Xuyen, 

Angiang Agricultural; Technology Service 

Company; Aquatic Products Trading Company; 

Bentre Aquaproduct Imports & Exports; Bentre 

Forestry and Aquaproduct Import-Export Company 

(‘‘FAQUIMEX’’); Bentre Frozen Aquaproduct 

Exports; Bentre Seafood Joint Stock; Beseaco, Binh 

Dinh Fishery Joint Stock; Ca Mau Seaproducts 

Exploitation and Service Corporation (‘‘SES’’); 

Camau Seafood Fty; Can Tho Seafood Exports; 

Cautre Enterprises; Chun Cheng Da Nang Co., Ltd.; 

Co Hieu; Cong Ty Do Hop Viet Cuong; Dao Van 

Manh; Dong Phuc Huynh; Dragon Waves Frozen 

Food Fty.; Duyen Hai Bac Lieu Company (‘‘T.K. 

Co.’’); Duyen Hai Foodstuffs Processing Factory 

(‘‘COSEAFEX’’); General Imports & Exports; Hacota; 

Hai Ha Private Enterprise; Hai Thuan Export 

Seaproduct Processing Co., Ltd. ; Hai Viet; Hai Viet 

Corporation (‘‘HAVICO’’); Hanoi Seaproducts 

Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Hanoi’’); 

Seaprodex Hanoi; Hatrang Frozen Seaproduct Fty; 

Hoa Nam Marine Agricultural; Hoan An Fishery; 

Hoan Vu Marine Product Co., Ltd.; Hua Heong Food 

Ind Vietnam; Khanh Loi Trading; Kien Gang Sea 

Products Import - Export Company (Kisimex); Kien 

Gang Seaproduct Import and Export Company 

(‘‘KISIMEX’’); Konoike Vinatrans Logistics; Lamson 

Import-Export Foodstuffs Corporation; Long An 

Food Processing Export Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘LAFOOCO’’); Lucky Shing; Nam Hai; Nha Trang 

Company Limited; Nha Trang Fisheries Co. Ltd.; 

Pataya Food Industry (Vietnam) Ltd.; Phat Loc 

Seafood; Phung Hung Private Business; Saigon 

Orchide; Sea Product; Sea Products Imports & 

Exports; Seafood Company Zone II (‘‘Thusaco2’’); 

Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company No.9 

(previously Seafood Processing Imports Exports); 

Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory; Seaprodex; 

Seaprodex Quang Tri; Sonacos; Song Huong ASC 

Import-Export Company Ltd.; Song Huong ASC 

Joint Stock Company; Special Aquatic Products 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘Seaspimex’’); SSC; T & T 

Co., Ltd.; Tacvan Frozen Seafoods Processing 

Export Company; Thami Shipping & Airfreight; 

Thang Long; Thanh Long; Thanh Doan Seaproducts 

Import; Thien Ma Seafood; Tourism Material and 

Equipment Company (Matourimex Hochiminh City 

Branch); Truc An Company; Trung Duc Fisheries 

Private Enterprise; V N Seafoods; Vien Thang 

Private Enterprise; Viet Nhan Company; Vietfracht 

Can Tho; Vietnam Northern Viking Technologie 

Co.; Vietnam Northern Viking Technology Co. Ltd.; 

Vietnam Tomec Co., Ltd.; Vilfood Co.; and Vita. 

convenience and for customs purposes 

only and are not dispositive, but rather 

the written description of the scope of 

this order is dispositive. 

Preliminary Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Review 

As stated above, Vinh Hoan, Kim 

Anh, Quoc Viet, and CP Vietnam 

informed the Department that they did 

not export subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR. The 

Department sent an inquiry to CBP to 

determine whether CBP entry data is 

consistent with these statements.6 With 

respect to Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet, 

CBP has not provided any information 

that contradicted these companies’ 

claims. Therefore, because the record 

indicates that Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet 

did not sell subject merchandise to the 

United States during the POR, we are 

preliminarily rescinding this 

administrative review with respect to 

Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet. See 19 CFR 

351.213(d)(3). However, we are not 

preliminarily rescinding the instant 

administrative review with respect to 

Kim Anh and CP Vietnam, because CBP 

provided a response to the Department’s 

inquiry that contradicted the no– 

shipment claims from Kim Anh and CP 

Vietnam. See Memorandum to the File, 

from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, re: 

CBP Inquiry Results, dated March 2, 

2009. We have requested information 

from the companies to address the 

discrepancy between the CBP data and 

the no–shipments certifications.7 Thus, 

pending additional information from the 

companies and CBP, we are not 

preliminarily rescinding the reviews 

with respect to Kim Anh and CP 

Vietnam. Therefore, the Department 

must preliminarily assign a rate to these 

companies. We note that Kim Anh and 

CP Vietnam have not provided any 

information on the record to indicate 

their eligibility for a rate separate from 

the Vietnam–wide entity. Consequently, 

we are preliminarily assigning Kim Anh 

and CP Vietnam the Vietnam–wide 

entity rate. 

Vietnam–Wide Entity 

Upon initiation of the administrative 

review, we provided the opportunity for 

all companies upon which the review 

was initiated to complete either the 

separate–rates application or 

certification. The separate–rate 

certification and separate–rate 

applications are available at: http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/download/nme–sep-rates/ 

vietnam–shrimp/AR0708/vietnam– 

shrimp-sr–cert–040708.pdf. 

As noted above, Kim Anh and CP 

Vietnam did not apply for a separate 

rate in this administrative review. 

Therefore, Kim Anh and CP Vietnam 

will be part of the Vietnam–wide entity. 

Additionally, as stated above, 788

additional companies upon which a 

review was initiated did not apply for 

a separate rate. Because the Department 

preliminarily determines that there were 

exports of subject merchandise under 

review from Vietnamese producers/ 

exporters that did not demonstrate their 

eligibility for separate–rate status, the 

Vietnam–wide entity is now under 

review. 

Request for Revocation, In Part 

On February 29, 2008, Fish One, one 

of the non–selected separate rate 

respondents in this proceeding, 

requested an administrative review and 

revocation of the Order. Although the 

Department acknowledged the review 

request within the Initiation Notice, we 

inadvertently omitted Fish One’s 

request for revocation within the 

Initiation Notice. On October 8, 2008, 

and January 2, 2009, Fish One filed 

comments arguing that the Department 

must comply with certain statutory and 

regulatory obligations related to 

revocation requests. Further, on January 

8, 2009, Petitioner filed comments 

opposing Fish One’s request for 

verification of its data. 

In its initial request for revocation, 

Fish One argued that it has maintained 

three consecutive years of sales at not 

less than normal value. Fish One argued 

that, as a result of its alleged three 

consecutive years of no dumping, it is 

eligible for revocation under section 

751(d)(1) of the Act and section 

351.222(b)(2) of the Department’s 

regulations. 

We preliminarily determine not to 

revoke the Order with respect to Fish 

One. The Act affords the Department 

broad discretion to limit the number of 

respondents selected for individual 

review when the large number of review 

requests makes the individual 

calculation of dumping margins for all 

companies under review impracticable. 

Specifically, section 777A(c)(2) of the 

Act provides that if it is not practicable 

for the Department to make individual 

dumping margin determinations 

because of the large number of exporters 

or producers involved, the Department 

may determine margins for a reasonable 

number of exporters or producers. 

Although the Department’s regulations 

set out rules and requirements for 

possible revocation of a dumping order, 

in whole or in part, based on an absence 

of dumping, it is silent on the 

applicability of this regulation when the 

Department has limited its examination 

under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. The 

Department does not interpret the 

regulation as requiring it to conduct an 

individual examination of Fish One, or 

a verification of Fish One’s data, where, 

as here, the Department determined to 

limit its examination to a reasonable 

number of exporters in accordance with 

section 777A(c)(2)(B), and Fish One was 

not one of the companies selected under 

this provision. To interpret the 

regulation as Fish One has proposed, 

i.e., requiring the Department to analyze 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10012 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

9For firms previously awarded separate rate 

status, the Department allows those firms to file a 

separate-rate certification, provided that the 

company did not undergo changes in status since 

the previous granting period. Additionally, firms 

that did not hold a separate rate in a previous 

granting period may not use a separate-rate 

certification, but, instead must submit a separaterate application for separate rate status. See 

separate-rate certificate issued by the Department 

on April 8, 2008; available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

download/nme-sep-rates/vietnam-shrimp/AR0708/ 

vietnam-shrimp-sr-cert-040708.pdf. 

10These exporters are: Cadovimex, CATACO, 

Stapimex, UTXI, Bac Lieu, Minh Hai Export Frozen 

Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, and 

Thuan Phuoc. 

and verify Fish One’s reported data, 

would undermine the authority 

Congress provided the Department to 

limit its examination in cases, such as 

shrimp from Vietnam, where there are 

many respondents under review (over 

100 in this case). Under Fish One’s 

interpretation, the Department would be 

required to conduct individual reviews 

and verifications for any company 

requesting revocation, no matter how 

many such requests are received. The 

Department does not believe that such 

an interpretation is correct, nor 

warranted, under the Act. Nothing in 

the regulation requires the Department 

to conduct an individual examination 

and verification when the Department 

has limited its review, under section 

777A(c)(2). As explained above, Fish 

One was not selected for individual 

review because, pursuant to 

777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department 

selected the three largest exporters, by 

volume. See Respondent Selection 

Memo. Thus, because we have not 

selected Fish One for individual 

examination, we preliminarily 

determine not to revoke the Order with 

respect to Fish One. 

However, Fish One filed a timely 

separate–rate certification, as evidence 

of its continued eligibility for a separate 

rate. Thus, the Department considers 

Fish One a cooperative respondent 

eligible for a separate rate. Moreover, as 

the Department has calculated positive 

margins for all three selected 

respondents in these preliminary 

results, we are assigning a separate rate 

to all SR respondents equal to the 

weighted average of the three calculated 

margins. See ‘‘Rate for Non–Selected 

Companies’’ section below. 

Verification 

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), 

between January 12 and January 16, 

2009, we conducted a verification of 

Phuong Nam’s sales and factors of 

production (‘‘FOP’’). See Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrinp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Verification of 

Sales and Factors of Production for 

Phuong Nam Co., Ltd. (‘‘Phuong Nam’’), 

dated March 2, 2009. 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On September 11, 2008, the 

Department sent interested parties a 

letter requesting comments on surrogate 

country selection and information 

pertaining to valuing factors of 

production. Camimex and MPG 

submitted surrogate country comments 

on January 5, 2009. Petitioner filed 

rebuttal surrogate country comments on 

January 8, 2009, opposing Camimex and 

MPG’s request for the Department to 

select Bangladesh as the surrogate 

country. 

On January 30, 2009, Phuong Nam, 

MPG, Camimex and Petitioner 

submitted surrogate value data. On 

February 3, 2009, MPG and Camimex 

commented on Petitioner’s surrogate 

value data submission dated January 30, 

2009. On February 4, 2009, Petitioner 

filed additional surrogate value data. On 

February 10, 2009, Petitioner filed pre– 

preliminary results comments with 

respect to the calculation methodology 

used to convert the shrimp surrogate 

values to the same basis as the 

respondents’ reported data. On February 

11, 2009, Phuong Nam filed comments 

rebutting Petitioner’s surrogate value 

data dated February 10, 2009. 

For a detailed account of the 

Department’s surrogate country 

selection, please see the ‘‘Surrogate 

Country’’ section below. 

Non–Market Economy Country Status 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving Vietnam, Vietnam 

has been treated as a non–market 

economy (‘‘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 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 (September 19, 2007) (unchanged 

in final results). None of the parties to 

this proceeding have contested such 

treatment. Accordingly, we calculated 

the NV in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act, which applies to NME 

countries. 

Separate Rates 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 Vietnam are subject 

to government control and, thus, should 

be assessed a single antidumping duty 

rate. It is the Department’s standard 

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 the Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Sparklers from the 

People’s Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 

(May 6, 1991) (‘‘Sparklers’’), as 

amplified by the 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’’). 

For this administrative review, the 

Department received a total of 28 

separate–rate certifications.9 Of those 28 

separate–rate certifications, three were 

submitted by the mandatory 

respondents, whose eligibility for a 

separate rate was analyzed within their 

respective questionnaire responses. 

Therefore, the Department analyzed 25 

separate–rate certifications for 

companies upon which the 

administrative review was initiated, but 

not selected for individual review. Of 

those 25 separate–rate certifications, the 

Department noted that separate–rate 

certifications filed by seven exporters10

showed that these seven companies 

claimed to have undergone changes in 

name, legal and/or corporate structure 

during the POR. A separate–rate 

certification is not the proper vehicle by 

which a company that has undergone 

name or other corporate changes should 

request a separate rate. Accordingly, for 

purposes of these preliminary results, 

the Department has examined the 

separate–rate eligibility of the 

respondents prior to any name or other 

corporate change. On December 9, 2008, 

the Department notified these seven 

respondents that any claims of 

successor–in-interest by these 

companies must be requested within the 

context of a changed circumstance 

review request. See Department’s letter 

dated December 9, 2009. The 

Department intends to take into account 

the final results of any changed 

circumstances review that has been 

requested, initiated, and completed 

before the final results of this review. 

Lastly, one separate rate company, 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited, 

reported that it is wholly owned by 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10013 

11See e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Creatine Monohydrate 

from the People’s Republic of China, 64 FR 71104- 

05 (December 20, 1999) (where the respondent was 

wholly foreign-owned and, thus, qualified for a 

separate rate). See also Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results, Preliminary Partial Rescission 

and Final Partial Rescission of the Second 

Administrative Review 73 FR 12127 (March 6, 

2008), unchanged in Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Final Results and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

52273 (September 9, 2008) (‘‘Vietnam Shrimp 

AR2’’). 

12The non-selected respondents of this 

administrative review seeking a separate rate are: 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd., Bac Lieu Fisheries 

Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’), Ca Mau Seafood 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’), 

Cadovimex Seafood Import-Export and Processing 

Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX’’), Cantho 

Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export 

Enterprise (Cafatex), Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing 

Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’), Can 

Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import 

Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’), Coastal Fisheries 

Development Corporation (‘‘COFIDEC’’), Cuulong 

Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’), Danang 

Seaproducts Import Export Corporation 

(‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) and affiliate Tho Quang 

Seafood Processing & Export Company, Grobest & 

I-Mei Industrial (Vietnam) Co., Ltd., Investment 

Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’), 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing JointStock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’), Minh Hai 

Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company 

(‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’), Ngoc Sinh Private 

Enterprise, Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock 

Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’), Nha Trang 

Seaproduct Company (‘‘Nha Trang Seafoods’’), Phu 

Cuong Seafood Processing & Import-Export Co., 

Ltd., Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘FIMEX’’), Soc Trang Aquatic Products and 

General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’), 

Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation 

(and its affiliates), UTXI Aquatic Products 

Processing Company, Viet Foods Co., Ltd., Viet Hai 

Seafood Co., Ltd. a/k/a Vietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. 

(Fish One), Vinh Loi Import Export Company 

(‘‘VIMEX’’). 

13This preliminary finding applies to the three 

mandatory respondents of this administrative 

review: MPG, Camimex, and Phuong Nam, and the 

non-selected respondents eligible for a separate rate 

listed in the preceding footnote. 

individuals or companies located in a 

market economy in its separate–rate 

application. Therefore, because it is 

wholly foreign–owned, and we have no 

evidence indicating that its export 

activities are under the control of the 

Vietnamese government, a further 

separate rates analysis is not necessary 

to determine whether this company is 

independent from government 

control.11 Accordingly, we have 

preliminarily granted a separate rate to 

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Limited. 

A. 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; and (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies. 

Although the Department has 

previously assigned a separate rate to 

the companies eligible for a separate 

rate in the instant proceeding, it is the 

Department’s policy to evaluate separate 

rates questionnaire responses each time 

a respondent makes a separate rates 

claim, regardless of whether the 

respondent received a separate rate in 

the past. See Manganese Metal from the 

People’s Republic of China, Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 63 FR 12440 (March 13, 1998). 

In this review, MPG, Camimex, and 

Phuong Nam submitted complete 

responses to the separate rates section of 

the Department’s NME questionnaire. 

The evidence submitted by these 

companies includes government laws 

and regulations on corporate ownership, 

business licenses, and narrative 

information regarding the companies’ 

operations and selection of 

management. The evidence provided by 

these companies supports a finding of a 

de jure absence of government control 

over their export activities. 

Additionally, 25 participating separate 

rate companies/groups12 submitted 

timely separate rate certifications. The 

seven respondents noted in footnote 10 

are included in this group of 25. 

However, as stated above, the 

Department will examine the separate– 

rate eligibility of those respondents 

prior to any name or other corporate 

change until a successor–in-interest 

determination is made with respect to 

the new entities. 

We have no information in this 

proceeding that would cause us to 

reconsider this determination. Thus, we 

believe 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; and (2) the 

legal authority on the record 

decentralizing control over the 

respondents.13

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto government 

control over exports is based on whether 

the Respondent: (1) sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and other exporters; (2) retains the 

proceeds from its export sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) has the authority to negotiate 

and sign contracts and other 

agreements; and (4) has autonomy from 

the government regarding the selection 

of management. See Silicon Carbide, 59 

FR at 22587; Sparklers, 56 FR at 20589; 

see also Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: 

Furfuryl Alcohol from the People’s 

Republic of China, 60 FR 22544, 22545 

(May 8, 1995). 

In their questionnaire responses, 

MPG, Camimex, and Phuong Nam 

submitted evidence indicating an 

absence of de facto government control 

over their export activities. Specifically, 

this evidence indicates that: (1) each 

company sets its own export prices 

independent of the government and 

without the approval of a government 

authority; (2) each company retains the 

proceeds from its sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding the 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) each company has a general 

manager, branch manager or division 

manager with the authority to negotiate 

and bind the company in an agreement; 

(4) the general manager is selected by 

the board of directors or company 

employees, and the general manager 

appoints the deputy managers and the 

manager of each department; and (5) 

there is no restriction on any of the 

companies use of export revenues. 

Therefore, the Department preliminarily 

finds that MPG, Camimex, and Phuong 

Nam, and the separate rate companies 

have established prima facie that they 

qualify for separate rates under the 

criteria established by Silicon Carbide 

and Sparklers. 

Rate for Non–Selected Companies 

Based on timely requests from 

individual exporters and Petitioner, the 

Department originally initiated this 

review with respect to 110 companies/ 

groups. In accordance with section 

777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department 

employed a limited examination 

methodology, as it did not have the 

resources to examine all companies for 

which a review request was made. As 

stated previously, the Department 

selected three exporters, MPG, 

Camimex, and Phuong Nam as 

mandatory respondents in this review. 

Twenty–five additional companies 

submitted timely information as 

requested by the Department and 

remain subject to review as cooperative 

separate rate respondents. 

We note that the statute and the 

Department’s regulations do not directly 

address the establishment of a rate to be 

applied to individual companies not 

selected for examination where the 

Department limited its examination in 

an administrative review pursuant to 

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


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10014 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

14See Memorandum from Carole Showers, Acting 

Director, Office of Policy, to Catherine Bertrand, 

Program Manager, AD/CVD Enforcement, Office 9: 

Administrative Review of Certain Warmwater 

Shrimp from Vietnam: Request for a List of 

Surrogate Countries, dated July 29, 2008 

(‘‘Surrogate Country List’’) from the OP. 

15See 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) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2A. 

Department’s practice in this regard, in 

cases involving limited selection based 

on exporters accounting for the largest 

volumes of trade, has been to look to 

section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which 

provides instructions for calculating the 

all–others rate in an investigation, for 

guidance. Consequently, the Department 

generally weight–averages the rates 

calculated for the mandatory 

respondents, excluding zero and de 

minimis rates and rates based entirely 

on adverse facts available (‘‘AFA’’), and 

applies that resulting weighted–average 

margin to non–selected cooperative 

separate–rate respondents. See, e.g., 

Wooden Bedroom Furniture From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, Preliminary 

Results of New Shipper Review and 

Partial Rescission of Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 8273 (February 13, 2008) 

(unchanged in final results). 

Consequently, consistent with our 

practice, we have preliminarily 

established a weighted–average margin 

for the separate–rate respondents based 

on the rates we calculated for the three 

mandatory respondents, excluding any 

rates that are zero, de minimis, or based 

entirely on AFA. See Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Preliminary 

Results Simple–Averaged Margin for 

Separate Rate Respondents, dated 

March 2, 2009. For the Vietnam–wide 

entity, we have assigned the entity’s 

current rate and only rate ever 

determined for the entity in this 

proceeding. 

Surrogate Country 

When the Department is investigating 

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: (1) at a level of 

economic development comparable to 

that of the NME country; and (2) 

significant producers of comparable 

merchandise. The sources of the 

surrogate factor values are discussed 

under the ‘‘Normal Value’’ section 

below and in Memorandum to the File 

through Catherine Bertrand, Program 

Manager, Office 9 from Irene Gorelik, 

Senior Analyst, Office 9; Third 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Surrogate Values for the 

Preliminary Results, dated March 2, 

2009 (‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’). 

Pursuant to its practice, the 

Department received a list of potential 

surrogate countries from the Office of 

Policy (‘‘OP’’).14 The OP determined 

that Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri 

Lanka, and Indonesia were at a 

comparable level of economic 

development to Vietnam. See Surrogate 

Country List. The Department considers 

the five countries identified by the OP 

in its Surrogate Country List as ‘‘equally 

comparable in terms of economic 

development.’’ Id. Thus, we find that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, 

and Indonesia are all at an economic 

level of development equally 

comparable to that of Vietnam. 

Also, based on publicly available data 

published by the Food and Agricultural 

Organization (‘‘FAO’’) of the United 

Nations’ FishStat Database (‘‘FishStat’’), 

we obtained world production data of 

frozen warmwater shrimp. Specifically, 

the Department has reviewed the data 

from FishStat which shows that 

Bangladesh, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, 

and Sri Lanka all produce the identical 

merchandise. See Memorandum to the 

File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, 

Re: Third Administrative Review of 

Certain Warmwater Shrimp from 

Vietnam: Fishstat Data, dated March 2, 

2009. Therefore, all countries are being 

considered as an appropriate surrogate 

country for Vietnam because each 

country produces the identical 

merchandise. Moreover, according to 

FishStat, in 2005, the most recent year 

for which FishStat export statistics are 

available, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and 

India, are all significant producers of 

comparable merchandise. See id. 

Though both Pakistan and Sri Lanka 

export frozen shrimp, the quantities 

they export do not qualify them as 

significant producers of the subject 

merchandise. As Bangladesh, Indonesia, 

and India are all significant producers of 

comparable merchandise, the 

Department must look to data 

considerations when choosing the most 

appropriate surrogate country from 

among these countries. 

With regard to India and Indonesia, 

the record contains publicly available 

surrogate factor value information for 

some factors. MPG and Camimex 

provided data for both Indonesia and 

Bangladesh from a study conducted by 

the Network of Aquaculture Centres in 

Asia–Pacific (‘‘NACA’’), an 

intergovernmental organization 

affiliated with the UN’s Food and 

Agriculture Organization (‘‘FAO’’). 

However, unlike the Bangladeshi data 

within the NACA study, the Indonesian 

shrimp data is limited and does not 

satisfy as many factors of the 

Department’s data selection criteria 

(e.g., broad–market average). Thus, 

Indonesia is not the most appropriate 

surrogate country for purposes of this 

review. With respect to India, the only 

shrimp value on the record is ranged 

data obtained from one Indian 

respondent’s data in the current 

administrative review of warmwater 

shrimp from India, which also does not 

satisfy as many factors of the 

Department’s data selection criteria 

(e.g., public availability, broad–market 

average). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting the best available information 

for valuing FOPs, in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act, is to select, 

to the extent practicable, surrogate 

values which are product–specific, 

representative of a broad market 

average, publicly available, 

contemporaneous with the POR and 

exclusive of taxes and duties.15 As a 

general matter, the Department prefers 

to use publicly available data 

representing a broad market average to 

value surrogate values. See id. The 

Department notes that the value of the 

main input, head–on, shell–on 

(‘‘HOSO’’) shrimp, is a critical factor of 

production in the dumping calculation 

as it accounts for a significant 

percentage of normal value. Moreover, 

the ability to value shrimp on a count 

size basis is a significant consideration 

with respect to the data available on the 

record. 

The Department notes that the 

mandatory respondents and Petitioner 

submitted count–size specific shrimp 

data and equally comparable surrogate 

company financial statements from 

shrimp processors. Therefore, 

availability of count–size specific data 

or surrogate financial ratios on this 

record is not the determining factor in 

selecting a surrogate country for this 

review. 

However, the Bangladeshi shrimp 

values within the NACA study are 

compiled by the UN’s FAO from actual 

pricing records kept by Bangladeshi 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10015 

16 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. 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. 

farmers, traders, depots, agents, and 

processors. See Factor Valuation Memo. 

The Bangladeshi shrimp values within 

the NACA study represent a broad– 

market average and are publicly 

available, unlike those of the single 

Indian processor. Therefore, with 

respect to the data considerations, 

because the record contains shrimp 

values for Bangladesh that better meet 

our selection criteria than the India 

source, we are selecting Bangladesh as 

the surrogate country. 

In this regard, given the above–cited 

facts, we find that the information on 

the record shows that Bangladesh is an 

appropriate surrogate country because 

Bangladesh is at a similar level of 

economic development pursuant to 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, and has reliable, publicly 

available data representing a broad– 

market average for surrogate valuation 

purposes. 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

an antidumping administrative review, 

interested parties may submit publicly 

available information to value FOPs 

within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary 

results.16

U.S. Price 

A. Export Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we calculated the export price 

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

Camimex and Phuong Nam because the 

first sale to an unaffiliated party was 

made before the date of importation and 

the use of constructed export price 

(‘‘CEP’’) was not otherwise warranted. 

Additionally, we calculated the EP for a 

portion of MPG’s sales to the United 

States. 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 and brokerage and handling. 

Each of these services was either 

provided by an NME vendor or paid for 

using an NME currency. Thus, we based 

the deduction of these movement 

charges on surrogate values. 

Additionally, for international freight 

provided by a market economy provider 

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

actual cost per kilogram of the freight. 

See Factor Valuation Memo for details 

regarding the surrogate values for 

movement expenses. 

B. Constructed Export Price 

For the majority of MPG’s sales, we 

based U.S. price on CEP in accordance 

with section 772(b) of the Act, because 

sales were made on behalf of the 

Vietnam–based company by its U.S. 

affiliate to unaffiliated purchasers in the 

United States. For these sales, we based 

CEP on prices to the first unaffiliated 

purchaser in the United States. Where 

appropriate, we made deductions from 

the starting price (gross unit price) for 

foreign movement expenses, 

international movement expenses, U.S. 

movement expenses, and appropriate 

selling adjustments, in accordance with 

section 772(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

In accordance with section 772(d)(1) 

of the Act, we also deducted those 

selling expenses associated with 

economic activities occurring in the 

United States. We deducted, where 

appropriate, commissions, inventory 

carrying costs, credit expenses, and 

indirect selling expenses. Where foreign 

movement expenses, international 

movement expenses, or U.S. movement 

expenses were provided by Vietnam 

service providers or paid for in 

Vietnamese Dong, we valued these 

services using surrogate values (see 

‘‘Factors of Production’’ section below 

for further discussion). For those 

expenses that were provided by a 

market–economy provider and paid for 

in market–economy currency, we used 

the reported expense. Due to the 

proprietary nature of certain 

adjustments to U.S. price, for a detailed 

description of all adjustments made to 

U.S. price for all three mandatory 

respondents, see Memorandum to the 

File, through Catherine Bertrand, 

Program Manager, Office 9, from Irene 

Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Office 9; 

Company Analysis Memorandum in the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Certain Frozen Warmwater 

Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam; Minh Phu Group, dated March 

2, 2009 (‘‘MPG Analysis Memo’’); 

Memorandum to the File, through 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Blaine Wiltse, Analyst, 

Office 9; Company Analysis 

Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam; Phuong Nam Co., 

Ltd., dated March 2, 2009 (‘‘Phuong 

Nam Analysis Memo’’); and 

Memorandum to the File, through 

Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Robert Palmer, Analyst, 

Office 9; Company Analysis 

Memorandum in the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Certain Frozen 

Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam; Camimex, dated 

March 2, 2009 (‘‘Camimex Analysis 

Memo’’). 

Normal Value 

1. Methodology 

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

provides that the Department shall 

determine the NV using a 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 FOPs 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. 

2. Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, we calculated NV based on 

FOPs reported by respondents for the 

POR, except as noted above. To 

calculate NV, we multiplied the 

reported per–unit factor–consumption 

rates by publicly available Bangladeshi 

surrogate values. 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. Specifically, we added 

to Bangladeshi import surrogate values 

a surrogate freight cost using the shorter 

of the reported distance from the 

domestic supplier to the factory of 

production or the distance from the 

nearest seaport to the factory of 

production where appropriate. This 

adjustment is in accordance with the 

Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit’s decision in Sigma Corp. v. 

United States, 117 F. 3d 1401, 1407– 

1408 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Where we did not 

use Bangladeshi Import Statistics, we 

calculated freight based on the reported 

distance from the supplier to the 

factory. 

With regard to surrogate values and 

the market–economy input values, we 

have disregarded prices that we have 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10016 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

17See Petitioner’s Submission dated February 4, 

2009, at Attachment I, page 3. See also Vietnam 

Shrimp AR2 at Comment 2 (where the Department 

rejected shrimp surrogate values obtained from 

price quotes or ranged proprietary data). 

18For a detailed explanation of the Department’s 

valuation of shrimp, see Factor Valuation Memo. 

19This can be accessed online at: http:// 

www.unstats.un.org/unsd/comtrade/ 

reason to believe or suspect may be 

subsidized. We have reason to believe or 

suspect that prices of inputs from 

Indonesia, South Korea, Thailand, and 

India may have been subsidized. We 

have found in other proceedings that 

these countries maintain broadly 

available, non–industry-specific export 

subsidies and, therefore, it is reasonable 

to infer that all exports to all markets 

from these countries may be subsidized. 

See Notice of Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Negative Final Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004) 

(‘‘CTVs from the PRC’’), and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 7; see also 

Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel 

Plate from Romania: Notice of Final 

Results and Final Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 12651 (March 15, 2005), 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4. The 

legislative history of the Act provides 

that in making its determination as to 

whether input values may be 

subsidized, the Department is not 

required to conduct a formal 

investigation, rather, Congress directed 

the Department to base its decision on 

information that is available to it at the 

time it makes its determination. See 

Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness 

Act of 1988, Conference Report to 

Accompanying, H.R. Rep. 100–576 at 

590 (1988). 

Therefore, based on the information 

currently available, we have not used 

prices from these countries either in 

calculating the Bangladeshi import– 

based surrogate values or in calculating 

market–economy input values. In 

instances where a market–economy 

input was obtained solely from 

suppliers located in these countries, we 

used Bangladeshi import–based 

surrogate values to value the input. 

With respect to certain purchases 

made by all three mandatory 

respondents, the Department noted that 

the purchase prices for certain inputs 

used to produce subject merchandise 

were from a country that we believe or 

suspect maintains broadly available, 

non–industry-specific export subsidies. 

As a result, we have, instead, used a 

surrogate value for those inputs. For 

further detail, see MPG Analysis Memo, 

Phuong Nam Analysis Memo, and 

Camimex Analysis Memo. 

Raw Shrimp Value 

The Department notes that the 

mandatory respondents and Petitioner 

submitted Bangladeshi shrimp values 

with which to value the main input, raw 

shrimp. Phuong Nam submitted 

Bangladeshi shrimp values obtained 

from a single processor, Apex Foods 

Limited. Petitioner submitted shrimp 

values based on a survey of several 

Bangladeshi shrimp processors. As 

stated above, MPG and Camimex 

submitted data contained in the NACA 

study compiled by the UN’s FAO. 

As stated above, the Department’s 

practice when selecting the best 

available information for valuing FOPs 

is to select, to the extent practicable, 

surrogate values which are product– 

specific, representative of a broad 

market average, publicly available, 

contemporaneous with the POR and 

exclusive of taxes and duties. Phuong 

Nam’s submitted shrimp values from 

Apex Foods Limited, although publicly 

available, are from a single Bangladeshi 

shrimp producer of comparable 

merchandise, thus does not represent a 

broad market average of prices. Further, 

with respect to Petitioner’s submitted 

shrimp values obtained from a survey of 

several Bangladeshi shrimp producers, 

we note that the authors of the survey 

averaged the shrimp prices they 

collected for business confidentiality 

reasons, thus the underlying data are 

not publicly available.17 The 

Department prefers using public data, 

when available, with which to value the 

FOPs. See e.g., Fresh Garlic from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Final Results of New 

Shipper Reviews, 71 FR 26329 (May 4, 

2006) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 7; 

see also Saccharin from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 7515 

(February 13, 2006) and accompany 

Issued and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 5. Therefore, to value the 

main input, head–on, shell–on shrimp, 

the Department used data contained in 

the NACA study.18

Additionally, Petitioners filed pre– 

preliminary results comments with 

respect to the calculation steps required 

to adjust the HOSO shrimp surrogate 

values to the ‘‘headless, shell–on’’ 

(‘‘HLSO’’) shrimp consumption reported 

by the mandatory respondents. 

Consequently, we reviewed the 

adjustment methodology and concluded 

that the Department has overlooked a 

calculation step within the methodology 

in adjusting the surrogate value data to 

the respondents’ shrimp consumption 

data, taking into account different bases 

of reported data. Specifically, the 

surrogate value data is on a HOSO, 

pieces per kilogram basis, while the 

respondents’ data is on a HLSO, pieces 

per pound basis. The Department has 

added an additional step in the HLSO 

to HOSO adjustment, such that the 

surrogate value data and shrimp 

consumption data upon which accurate 

margin calculations rely are on the same 

bases with respect to units of measure 

and HOSO. See Factor Valuation Memo 

for a detailed description of each step 

within the conversion methodology. 

The Department used United Nations 

ComTrade Statistics, provided by the 

United Nations Department of Economic 

and Social Affairs’ Statistics Division, as 

its primary source of Bangladeshi 

surrogate value data.19 The data 

represents cumulative values for the 

calendar year 2006, for inputs classified 

by the Harmonized Commodity 

Description and Coding System number. 

For each input value, we used the 

average value per unit for that input 

imported into Bangladesh from all 

countries that the Department has not 

previously determined to be NME 

countries. Import statistics from 

countries that the Department has 

determined to be countries which 

subsidized exports (i.e., Indonesia, 

Korea, Thailand, and India) and imports 

from unspecified countries also were 

excluded in the calculation of the 

average value. See CTVs from the PRC, 

69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). 

It is the Department’s practice to 

calculate price index adjustors to inflate 

or deflate, as appropriate, surrogate 

values that are not contemporaneous 

with the POR using the wholesale price 

index (‘‘WPI’’) for the subject country. 

See Notice of Preliminary Determination 

of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and 

Postponement of Final Determination: 

Hand Trucks and Certain Parts Thereof 

from the People’s Republic of China, 69 

FR 29509 (May 24, 2004). However, in 

this case, a WPI was not available for 

Bangladesh. Therefore, where publicly 

available information contemporaneous 

with the POR with which to value 

factors could not be obtained, surrogate 

values were adjusted using the 

Consumer Price Index rate for 

Bangladesh, or the WPI for India or 

Indonesia (for certain surrogate values 

where Bangladeshi data could not be 

obtained), as published in the 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10017 

International Financial Statistics of the 

International Monetary Fund. 

Certain surrogate values were 

calculated using data from the 2005 

Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh, 

published by the Bangladesh Bureau of 

Statistics, Planning Division, Ministry of 

Planning. The information represents 

cumulative values for the period of 

2005. Certain other Bangladeshi sources 

were used as well. See Factor Valuation 

Memo. The unit values were initially 

calculated in takas/unit. Bangladeshi 

and other surrogate values denominated 

in foreign currencies were converted to 

USD using the applicable average 

exchange rate based on exchange rate 

data from the Department’s website. To 

value packing materials, we used UN 

ComTrade data as the primary source of 

Bangladeshi surrogate value data. To 

value factory overhead, Selling, General, 

& Administrative expenses, and profit, 

we used the simple average of the 2007– 

2008 financial statement of Apex Foods 

Limited and the 2006–2007 financial 

statement of Gemini Seafood Limited, 

both of which are Bangladeshi shrimp 

processors. See Factor Valuation Memo, 

at Exhibit 12. 

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: 

CERTAIN FROZEN WARMWATER SHRIMP FROM VIETNAM

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average Margin 

(Percent) 

MPG:Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., akaMinh Phat Seafood akaMinh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation 

(and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) akaMinh Phu Seafood Corp. 

akaMinh Phu Seafood Corporation akaMinh Qui Seafood akaMinh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. ................................ 1.66 % 

Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (‘‘CAMIMEX’’), akaCamimex, akaCamau Seafood Factory No. 4 , akaCamau Seafood Factory No. 5 ....................................................................................... 9.84 % 

Phuong Nam Co. Ltd., akaPhuong Nam Seafood Co. Ltd. akaWestern Seafood ................................................... 5.46 %

Amanda Foods (Vietnam) Ltd. .................................................................................................................................. 4.26 % 

Bac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited, akaBac Lieu Fisheries Company Limited (‘‘Bac Lieu’’)20 ............................ 4.26 % 

Cadovimex Seafood Import–Export and Processing Joint Stock Company (‘‘CADOVIMEX’’) akaCai Doi Vam 

Seafood Import–Export Company (Cadovimex)21 ................................................................................................. 4.26 % 

Cafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation (‘‘Cafatex Corp.’’) akaCantho Animal Fisheries Product Processing Export Enterprise (Cafatex), akaCafatex, akaCafatex Vietnam, akaXi Nghiep Che Bien Thuy Suc San Xuat 

Khau Can Tho, akaCas, akaCas Branch, akaCafatex Saigon, akaCafatex Fishery Joint Stock Corporation, 

akaCafatex Corporation, akaTaydo Seafood Enterprise ....................................................................................... 4.26 % 

Cam Ranh Seafoods Processing Enterprise Company (‘‘Camranh Seafoods’’) akaCamranh Seafoods ................ 4.26 % 

Can Tho Agricultural and Animal Product Import Export Company (‘‘CATACO’’) akaCan Tho Agricultural Products akaCATACO22 ................................................................................................................................................ 4.26 % 

Coastal Fishery Development akaCoastal Fisheries Development Corporation (Cofidec) akaCoastal Fisheries 

Development Corporation (Cofidec) ...................................................................................................................... 4.26 % 

Cuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) akaCuu Long Seaproducts Limited (Cuulong Seapro) 

akaCuulong Seapro, akaCuulong Seaproducts Company (‘‘Cuulong Seapro’’) (‘‘Cuu Long Seapro’’) ................ 4.26 % 

Danang Seaproducts Import Export Corporation (‘‘Seaprodex Danang’’) akaTho Quang Seafood Processing & 

Export Company, akaSeaprodex Danang, akaTho Quang Seafood Processing And Export Company, akaTho 

Quang, akaTho Quang Co. .................................................................................................................................... 4.26 % 

Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32, akaFrozen Seafoods Fty, akaThuan Phuoc, akaThuan Phuoc Seafoods and 

Trading Corporation, akaFrozen Seafoods Factory 32, akaSeafoods and Foodstuff Factory23 .......................... 4.26 % 

Grobest & I–Mei Industry Vietnam, akaGrobest, akaGrobest & I–Mei Industry (Vietnam) Co., Ltd. ....................... 4.26 % 

Investment Commerce Fisheries Corporation (‘‘Incomfish’’) ..................................................................................... 4.26 % 

Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint Stock Company, akaMinh Hai Jostoco, akaMinh Hai Export 

Frozen Seafood Processing Joint–Stock Company (‘‘Minh Hai Jostoco’’), akaMinh Hai Export Frozen Seafood 

Processing Joint–Stock Company, akaMinh Hai Joint Stock Seafood Processing Joint–Stock Company, 

akaMinh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint–Stock Co.24 .................................................................... 4.26 % 

Minh Hai Joint–Stock Seafoods Processing Company (‘‘Seaprodex Minh Hai’’) akaSea Minh Hai, akaMinh Hai 

Joint–Stock Seafoods Processing Company ......................................................................................................... 4.26 % 

Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (Seaprimex Co) , akaCa Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company 

(‘‘SEAPRIMEXCO’’) akaSeaprimexco Vietnam, akaSeaprimexcoCa Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company 

(Seaprimexco) ........................................................................................................................................................ 4.26 % 

Ngoc Sinh Private Enterprise, akaNgoc Sinh Seafoods, akaNgoc Sinh Seafoods Processing and Trading Enterprise ........................................................................................................................................................................ 4.26 % 

Nha Trang Fisheries Joint Stock Company (‘‘Nha Trang Fisco’’) ............................................................................. 4.26 % 

Nha Trang Seaproduct Company ( Nha Trang Seafoods’’) ...................................................................................... 4.26 % 

Phu Cuong Seafood Processing and Import–Export Co., Ltd. ................................................................................. 4.26 % 

Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (‘‘Fimex VN’’) .................................................................................................. 4.26 % 

Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (‘‘Stapimex’’)25 ................................................ 4.26 % 

UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Company, akaUT XI Aquatic Products Processing Company, akaUT–XI 

Aquatic Products Processing Company, akaUTXI, akaUTXI Co. Ltd., akaKhanh Loi Seafood Factory, 

akaHoang Phuong Seafood Factory26 .................................................................................................................. 4.26 % 

Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘Viet Foods’’) .......................................................................................................................... 4.26 % 

Viet Hai Seafood Co., Ltd. akaVietnam Fish One Co., Ltd. (Fish One) ................................................................... 4.26 % 

Vinh Loi Import Export Company (‘‘Vimexco’’), akaVinh Loi Import Export Company (‘‘VIMEX’’), akaVIMEXCO, 

akaVIMEX .............................................................................................................................................................. 4.26 % 

Vietnam–Wide Rate27 ................................................................................................................................................ 25.76 % 

20As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended Bac Lieu’s separate-rate status to Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company in these preliminary results. 21As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended Cadovimex’s separate-rate status to ‘‘CadovimexVietnam’’ in these preliminary results. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
10018 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 

22For the same reasons discussed in Vietnam Shrimp AR2 Final, we have not extended Cataco’s separate rate status to Cantho Import-Export 

Seafood Joint Stock Company, also known as Caseamex. See Vietnam Shrimp AR2 at Comment 7. 23As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended Thuan Phuoc’s separate-rate, pertaining to its status prior to any name or corporate changes, to the new entity in these preliminary results. 24For the same reasons discussed in Vietnam Shrimp AR2 Final, we have not extended Minh Hai Jostoco’s separate-rate status to: Kien 

Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export Joint-Stock Company (‘‘Kien Cuong’’) and Viet Cuong Seafood Processing Import Export Joint-Stock 

Company (‘‘Viet Cuong’’). See Vietnam Shrimp AR2 at Comment 7. We further note that, to date, Minh Hai Jostoco has not filed a changed circumstance review with respect to Kien Cuong and Viet Cuong. 25As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended Stapimex’s separate-rate status to Soc Trang 

Seafood Joint Stock Company in these preliminary results. 26As indicated above in the ‘‘Separate Rates Determination’’ section, we have not extended UTXI’s separate-rate status to UTXI Aquatic Products Processing Corporation in these preliminary results. 27The Vietnam-wide entity rate preliminarily includes Kim Anh and CP Vietnam. 

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). 

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 37 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of publication of 

these preliminary results. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). Requests should contain the 

following information: (1) the party’s 

name, address, and telephone number; 

(2) the number of participants; and (3) 

a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral 

presentations will be limited to issues 

raised in the briefs. If we receive a 

request for a hearing, we plan to hold 

the hearing seven days after the 

deadline for submission of the rebuttal 

briefs at the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

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. We will instruct CBP to 

liquidate entries containing 

merchandise from the Vietnam–wide 

entity at the Vietnam–wide rate we 

determine in the final results of review. 

We intend to issue assessment 

instructions to CBP 15 days after the 

date of publication of the final results of 

review. In accordance with 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), for Camimex, MPG, and 

Phuong Nam, 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 review 

period. See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). 

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. Where 

the weighted–average 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 Vinh Hoan and Quoc Viet, 

companies for which this review is 

preliminarily rescinded, 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). 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of the 

administrative review for all shipments 

of warmwater shrimp from Vietnam 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided by section 

751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) for the exporters 

listed above, the cash–deposit rate will 

be that established in the final results of 

review (except, if the rate is zero or de 

minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required); (2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash– 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter–specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other 

Vietnamese exporters of subject 

merchandise, which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate, 

the cash–deposit rate will be the 

Vietnam–wide rate of 25.76 percent; and 

(4) for all non–Vietnamese exporters of 

subject merchandise which have not 

received their own rate, the cash– 

deposit rate will be the rate applicable 

to the Vietnamese exporter that 

supplied that exporter. 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)(2) 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. 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 44 / Monday, March 9, 2009 / Notices 10019 

1Section A of the questionnaire requests general 

information concerning a company’s corporate 

structure and business practices, the merchandise 

under investigation that it sells, and the manner in 

which it sells that merchandise in all of its markets. 

Section B requests a complete listing of all home 

market sales, or, if the home market is not viable, 

of sales in the most appropriate third-country 

market (this section is not applicable to respondents 

in non-market economy (NME) cases). Section C 

requests a complete listing of U.S. sales. Section D 

requests information on the cost of production 

(COP) of the foreign like product and the 

constructed value (CV) of the merchandise under 

investigation. Section E requests information on 

further manufacturing. 

2The Department has not previously determined 

whether JFE is a successor to Kawasaki Steel 

Corporation or NKK Corporation nor has it been 

requested to do so in this review. 

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. E9–4911 Filed 3–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–588–846] 

Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled Carbon 

Quality Steel Products From Japan: 

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 hotrolled flat-rolled carbon quality steel 

products (hot-rolled steel) from Japan. 

The United States Steel Corporation 

(Petitioner) requested administrative 

reviews of JFE Steel Corporation (JFE), 

Nippon Steel Corporation (Nippon), and 

Kobe Steel, Ltd. (Kobe). This review 

covers exports of subject merchandise to 

the United States during the period June 

1, 2007 through May 31, 2008. 

We preliminarily determine that, in 

accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) 

of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 

(the Act), adverse facts available (AFA) 

should be applied to JFE, Nippon, and 

Kobe for not cooperating with the 

Department in this administrative 

review. The antidumping margins 

assigned to these companies are listed 

in the Preliminary Results of Review 

section of this notice. Interested parties 

are invited to comment on these 

preliminary results. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martha Douthit, AD/CVD Operations, 

Office 6, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–5050. 

Background 

On June 29, 1999, the Department 

published the antidumping duty order 

on hot-rolled steel from Japan in the 

Federal Register. See Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Hot-Rolled Flat-Rolled 

Carbon-Quality Steel Products from 

Japan, 64 FR 34778 (June 29, 1999). 

On June 9, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of this 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation: Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 73 

FR 32557 (June 9, 2008). The 

Department received a timely request 

for a review from Petitioner, covering 

JFE, Nippon, and Kobe. On July 30, 

2008, the Department published its 

initiation notice for the administrative 

review of these companies under the 

antidumping order on hot-rolled steel 

from Japan. See Initiation of 

Antidumping and Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Reviews, and Request for 

Revocation in Part, and Deferral of 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 44220 

(July 30, 2008). 

The Department issued Sections A 

through E of its original questionnaire to 

JFE, Nippon, and Kobe.1 The deadlines 

to submit responses to the Department’s 

questionnaire were September 1, 2008 

for Section A, and September 17, 2008 

for Sections B through E, for JFE and 

Nippon, and October 14, 2008 for 

Section A, and October 30, 2008 for 

Sections B through E for Kobe. 

On August 12, 2008, JFE Corporation 

submitted a letter stating that, effective 

April 1, 2003, Kawasaki Steel 

Corporation had changed its name to 

JFE as part of a merger with NKK 

Corporation.2 On August 19, 2008, 

Nippon submitted a letter stating that it 

would not be submitting a response to 

the Department’s questionnaire. Neither 

JFE, Nippon, nor Kobe submitted any 

response to the Department’s 

questionnaire. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise covered by this 

order consists of certain hot-rolled flatrolled carbon-quality steel products of a 

rectangular shape, of a width of 0.5 inch 

or greater, neither clad, plated, nor 

coated with metal and whether or not 

painted, varnished, or coated with 

plastics or other non-metallic 

substances, in coils (whether or not in 

successively superimposed layers) 

regardless of thickness, and in straight 

lengths, of a thickness less than 4.75 

mm and of a width measuring at least 

10 times the thickness. Universal mill 

plate (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on 

four faces or in a closed box pass, of a 

width exceeding 150 mm but not 

exceeding 1250 mm and of a thickness 

of not less than 4 mm, not in coils and 

without patterns in relief) of a thickness 

not less than 4.0 mm is not included 

within the scope of this order. 

Specifically included in this scope are 

vacuum degassed, fully stabilized 

(commonly referred to as interstitial-free 

(IF)) steels, high strength low alloy 

(HSLA) steels, and the substrate for 

motor lamination steels. IF steels are 

recognized as low carbon steels with 

micro-alloying levels of elements such 

as titanium and/or niobium added to 

stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. 

HSLA steels are recognized as steels 

with micro-alloying levels of elements 

such as chromium, copper, niobium, 

titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. 

The substrate for motor lamination 

steels contains micro-alloying levels of 

elements such as silicon and aluminum. 

Steel products to be included in the 

scope of this investigation, regardless of 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (HTSUS) definitions, are 

products in which: (1) Iron 

predominates, by weight, over each of 

the other contained elements; (2) the 

carbon content is 2 percent or less, by 

weight; and (3) none of the elements 

listed below exceeds the quantity, by 

weight, respectively indicated: 

1.80 percent of manganese, or 

1.50 percent of silicon, or 

1.00 percent of copper, or 

0.50 percent of aluminum, or 

1.25 percent of chromium, or 

0.30 percent of cobalt, or 

0.40 percent of lead, or 

1.25 percent of nickel, or 

0.30 percent of tungsten, or 

0.012 percent of boron, or 

0.10 percent of molybdenum, or 

0.10 percent of niobium, or 

0.41 percent of titanium, or 

0.15 percent of vanadium, or 

0.15 percent of zirconium. 

All products that meet the physical 

and chemical description provided 

above are within the scope of this order 

unless otherwise excluded. The 

following products, by way of example, 

are outside and/or specifically excluded 

from the scope of this order: 

• Alloy hot-rolled steel products in 

which at least one of the chemical 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES