58672 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 

Departmental Paperwork Clearance 

Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 

6025, 14th and Constitution Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20230, or via the 

Internet at dhynek@doc.gov. 

Send comments on the proposed 

information collection within 30 days of 

publication of the notice to the Office of 

Management and Budget, O.I.R.A., 

Attention PRA Desk Officer for BEA, via 

the Internet at pbugg@omb.eop.gov, or 

by FAX at 202–395–7245. 

Dated: October 3, 2005. 

Madeleine Clayton, 

Management Analyst, Office of the Chief 

Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–20143 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–34–U 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–848] 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From 

the People’s Republic of China: Notice 

of 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 freshwater 

crawfish tail meat from the People’s 

Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’). The period 

of review (‘‘POR’’) is September 1, 2003, 

through August 31, 2004. The 

Department has preliminarily 

determined that sales have been made 

below normal value. If these 

preliminary results are adopted in the 

final results of this review, the 

Department will instruct U.S. Customs 

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

antidumping duties on entries of subject 

merchandise during the period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) for which the importerspecific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Preliminary Results of Review’’

section of this notice. 

DATES: Effective date: October 7, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: P. 

Lee Smith or Scot Fullerton, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street and Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–1655 or (202) 482–1386, 

respectively. 

Background 

On September 15, 1997, the 

Department published an amended final 

determination and antidumping duty 

order on freshwater crawfish tail meat 

from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

from the People’s Republic of China, 62 

FR 48218 (September 15, 1997). 

Based on timely requests from various 

interested parties, the Department 

initiated an administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on freshwater 

crawfish tail meat from the PRC with 

respect to the following companies: 

China Kingdom International (‘‘China 

Kingdom’’); Qingdao Jinyongxiang 

Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. (‘‘JYX 

Aquatic’’); Qingdao Xiyuan Refrigerate 

Food Co., Ltd. (‘‘Qingdao Xiyuan’’); 

Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Weishan Zhenyu’’); Yancheng Hi-King 

Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Yancheng Hi-King’’); and Yancheng 

Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd. (‘‘Yancheng 

Yaou’’). See Initiation of Antidumping 

and Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 69 FR 62022 (October 22, 

2004) (‘‘Initiation Notice’’). 

On January 10, 2005, the Crawfish 

Processors Alliance (‘‘petitioner’’) 

withdrew its request for review with 

respect to Qingdao Xiyuan. The 

Department rescinded the 

administrative review of Qingdao 

Xiyuan on February 11, 2005. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 70 FR 7232 

(February 11, 2005). On March 31, 2005, 

the Department found that JYX Aquatic 

had no entries of subject merchandise 

during the POR and rescinded the 

administrative review with respect to 

JYX Aquatic. See Freshwater Crawfish 

Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 70 FR 16484 (March 31, 2005). 

On May 31, 2005, the Department 

extended the time limit for the 

completion of the preliminary results of 

review to no later than September 30, 

2005. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Time Limit for 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

30926 (May 31, 2005). 

On October 29, 2004, the Department 

issued an antidumping duty 

questionnaire to each PRC company 

listed in the above-referenced initiation 

notice and received responses from 

China Kingdom, Weishan Zhenyu, 

Yancheng Hi-King and Yancheng Yaou 

between December 6, 2004 and January 

18, 2005. 

The Department issued supplemental 

questionnaires to China Kingdom, 

Weishan Zhenyu, Yancheng Hi-King 

and Yancheng Yaou and received 

responses from February 9, 2005 

through July 25, 2005. 

Scope of Order 

The product covered by this 

antidumping duty order is freshwater 

crawfish tail meat, in all its forms 

(whether washed or with fat on, 

whether purged or unpurged), grades, 

and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or 

chilled; and regardless of how it is 

packed, preserved, or prepared. 

Excluded from the scope of the order are 

live crawfish and other whole crawfish, 

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. 

Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of 

any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater 

crawfish tail meat is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 

1605.40.10.90, which are the new 

HTSUS numbers for prepared 

foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish 

tail meat and other, as introduced by 

CBP in 2000, and HTSUS numbers 

0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which 

are reserved for fish and crustaceans in 

general. The HTSUS subheadings are 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes only. The written description 

of the scope of this order is dispositive. 

Non-Market Economy 

In every case conducted by the 

Department involving the PRC, the PRC 

has been treated as a non-market 

economy (‘‘NME’’). Pursuant to section 

771(18)(C)(i) of Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (‘‘the Act’’), any determination 

that a foreign country is a NME country 

shall remain in effect until revoked by 

the administering authority. See Fresh 

Garlic from the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Rescission in Part, 69 FR 

70638 (December 7, 2004). None of the 

parties to this proceeding has contested 

such treatment. Accordingly, we 

calculated normal value (‘‘NV’’) in 

accordance with section 773(c) of the 

Act, which applies to NME countries. 

Surrogate Country and Factors 

On February 25, 2005, the Department 

provided interested parties the 

opportunity to submit comments 

regarding the selection of a surrogate 

country and factor valuation in these 

preliminary results. On April 15, 2005, 

Weishan Zhenyu submitted publicly 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 58673 

available information for factor 

valuation. In its submission, Weishan 

Zhenyu included the financial report of 

an Indian seafood processor for valuing 

surrogate selling, general & 

administrative expenses (‘‘SG&A’’), 

overhead and profit. Weishan Zhenyu 

also included publicly available 

Spanish import statistics of non-frozen 

whole live freshwater crawfish from 

Portugal. The Department received no 

other comments regarding surrogate 

country or factor valuation. 

Section 773(c)(4) of the Act requires 

the Department to value an NME 

producer’s factors of production 

(‘‘FOP’’), to the extent possible, in one 

or more market-economy countries that 

(1) are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country, and (2) are significant 

producers of comparable merchandise. 

The Office of Policy issued a 

memorandum listing appropriate 

surrogate countries. See Memorandum 

from Ron Lorentzen to Carrie Blozy re: 

Administrative Review of Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat (‘‘Tail Meat’’) from 

the People’s Republic of China (PRC): 

Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries, dated November 24, 2004. 

The memorandum listed five countries, 

including India and Indonesia. 

Of the five countries named in the 

memorandum, none are significant 

producers of crawfish tail meat. 

However, India does have a seafood 

processing industry that is a comparable 

industry with respect to factory 

overhead, SG&A and profit. Therefore, 

we used India as the surrogate country 

to value all inputs with the exception of 

the raw material (whole live crawfish) 

and the by-product (crawfish scrap 

shell). Since we have determined that 

other forms of seafood are not 

sufficiently comparable to serve as 

surrogate values for the primary input, 

we have considered other countries in 

which to value the crawfish input. As 

done in prior segments of this 

proceeding, we have decided to use 

Spain as the surrogate country for the 

valuation of whole live crawfish 

because we have found that Spain is a 

significant producer of comparable 

merchandise, i.e., whole crawfish. See 

Memorandum from Benjamin Kong to 

The File through Carrie Blozy re: 

Administrative Review of Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Factor Valuation, 

dated September 30, 2005 (‘‘Factor 

Valuation Memo’’); and Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Revew, and Final Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546 

(April 22, 2002) (‘‘1999–2000 Final 

Results’’). In addition, we have decided 

to use Indonesia as the surrogate 

country for the valuation of the crawfish 

by-product scrap based on the 

availability of a public price quote from 

an Indonesian company that has been 

used in prior segments of this 

proceeding. See Memorandum to 

Barbara E. Tillman from Christian 

Hughes and Adina Teodorescu through 

Maureen Flannery re: Surrogate 

Valuation of Shell Scrap: Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China, Administrative 

Review 9/1/00–8/31/01 and New 

Shipper Reviews 9/1/00–8/31/01 and 9/ 

1/00–10/15/01, dated August 5, 2002; 

which was placed on the record of this 

review in Factor Valuation Memo, 

Attachment 5. We have not received 

comments from interested parties 

suggesting other possible surrogate 

values for these factors and have found 

no other data. We note that Weishan 

Zhenyu also suggested the use of 

Spanish import data from the period 

September 2003 through August 2004 to 

value whole live crawfish. For further 

discussion of our surrogate country 

selection, see Memorandum from P. Lee 

Smith through Carrie Blozy and James 

C. Doyle to The File re: Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Selection of 

a Surrogate Country, dated September 

30, 2005. 

Verification 

As provided in section 782(i) of the 

Act, the Department conducted 

verification of the responses of 

Yancheng Hi-King, Weishan Zhenyu 

and China Kingdom. The Department 

verified the questionnaire responses of 

Yancheng Hi-King from July 27 through 

July 29, 2005 using standard verification 

procedures, including on-site inspection 

of the manufacturer’s facilities and the 

examination of relevant sales and 

financial records. See Memorandum to 

the File re: Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review of Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Verification of U.S. 

Sales for Respondent Yancheng Hi-King 

Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Yancheng Hi-King Verification 

Report’’), dated September 30, 2005. 

The Department conducted 

verification of the questionnaire 

responses of Weishan Zhenyu from 

August 8 through August 13, 2005, 

using standard verification procedures, 

including on-site inspection of the 

manufacturer’s facilities and the 

examination of relevant sales and 

financial records. For more information, 

see the ‘‘Application of Adverse Facts 

Available’’ section below; and 

Memorandum to the File from Carrie 

Blozy and Scot T. Fullerton through 

James C. Doyle re: Antidumping Duty 

New Shipper Review of Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China (A–570–848): 

Verification report for Weishan Zhenyu 

Foodstuff Co., Ltd., dated September 30, 

2005 (‘‘Weishan Zhenyu Verification 

Report’’). 

The Department conducted 

verification of the questionnaire 

responses of China Kingdom from 

August 2 through August 5, 2005, using 

standard verification procedures, 

including on-site inspection of the 

manufacturer’s facilities and the 

examination of relevant sales and 

financial records. See the ‘‘Application 

of Adverse Facts Available’’ section 

below; and Memorandum to the File 

from Carrie Blozy and Benjamin Kong 

re: Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: Verification Report for China 

Kingdom International Group Co., Ltd., 

dated September 27, 2005 (‘‘China 

Kingdom Verification Report’’). 

Verification of the questionnaire 

responses of Yancheng Yaou was 

scheduled for August 2 through August 

5, 2005. However, as described in the 

‘‘Application of Adverse Facts 

Available’’ section above, Yancheng 

Yaou withdrew from verification on 

August 5, 2005. See Memorandum to 

the File from Scot Fullerton and Kristina 

Boughton through Carrie Blozy re: 

Memorandum Discussing the On Site 

Meetings to Verify the Response of 

Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd. In the 

Antidumping Duty Review of Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China, dated August 17, 

2005 (‘‘On Site Meetings with Yancheng 

Yaou Memo’’). 

The verification results are on file in 

the main Department of Commerce 

building, in the Central Records Unit, 

Room B–099. 

Separate Rates 

To establish whether a company 

operating in an NME is sufficiently 

independent to be entitled to a separate 

rate, the Department analyzes each 

exporting entity 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), as 

amplified by the Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon 

Carbide from the People’s Republic of 

China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). 

58674 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 

Under the separate-rates criteria, the 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME cases only if the respondent can 

demonstrate the absence of both de jure 

and de facto governmental control over 

export activities. 

As discussed above, Yancheng Yaou 

withdrew from verification. See On Site 

Meetings with Yancheng Yaou Memo. 

Yancheng Yaou also filed a letter stating 

it would no longer participate in the 

current administrative review. See 

Letter from Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., 

Ltd. to the Department, dated August 5, 

2005. Therefore, the Department was 

unable to verify Yancheng Yaou’s 

questionnaire responses concerning its 

eligibility for a separate rate. The 

Department therefore determines that 

Yancheng Yaou has not established that 

it is eligible for a separate rate. See 

‘‘Application of Adverse Facts 

Available’’ section below. 

De Jure Control 

Evidence supporting, though not 

requiring, a finding of de jure absence 

of government control over export 

activities includes: (1) An absence of 

restrictive stipulations associated with 

an individual exporter’s business and 

export licenses; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; and (3) any other formal 

measures by the government 

decentralizing control of companies. 

In their questionnaire responses, 

China Kingdom, Weishan Zhenyu and 

Yancheng Hi-King stated that they are 

independent legal entities. Evidence on 

the record indicates that the government 

does not have de jure control over their 

export activities. China Kingdom, 

Weishan Zhenyu and Yancheng Hi-King 

submitted evidence of their legal right to 

set prices independent of all 

governmental oversight. Furthermore, 

the business licenses of China Kingdom, 

Weishan Zhenyu and Yancheng Hi-King 

indicate that they are permitted to 

engage in the exportation of crawfish. 

We also found no evidence of de jure 

governmental control restricting China 

Kingdom, Weishan Zhenyu or Yancheng 

Hi-King’s exportation of crawfish. 

In their responses, China Kingdom, 

Weishan Zhenyu and Yancheng Hi-King 

stated that no export quotas apply to 

crawfish. Prior verifications have 

confirmed that there are no commodityspecific export licenses required and no 

quotas for the seafood category ‘‘Other,’’

which includes crawfish, in China’s 

Tariff and Non-Tariff Handbook for 

1996. In addition, we have previously 

confirmed that crawfish is not on the 

list of commodities with planned quotas 

in the 1992 PRC Ministry of Foreign 

Trade and Economic Cooperation 

document entitled Temporary 

Provisions for Administration of Export 

Commodities. See Freshwater Crawfish 

Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of 

China; Preliminary Results of New 

Shipper Review, 64 FR 8543 (February 

22, 1999), and Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat From the People’s Republic of 

China; Final Results of New Shipper 

Review, 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999) 

(Ningbo New Shipper Review). 

The following laws, which have been 

placed on the record of this review, 

indicate a lack of de jure government 

control. The Company Law of the 

People’s Republic of China, made 

effective on July 1, 1994, with the 

amended version promulgated on 

August 28, 2004, states that a company 

is an enterprise legal person, that 

shareholders shall assume liability 

towards the company to the extent of 

their shareholdings and that the 

company shall be liable for its debts to 

the extent of all its assets. Weishan 

Zhenyu and Yancheng Hi-King also 

provided copies of the Foreign Trade 

Law of the PRC, promulgated on May 

12, 1994, which identifies the rights and 

responsibilities of organizations engaged 

in foreign trade, grants autonomy to 

foreign-trade operators in management 

decisions and establishes the foreign 

trade operator’s accountability for 

profits and losses. China Kingdom, 

Weishan Zhenyu and Yancheng Hi-King 

also provided copies of their business 

licenses stating their right to conduct 

business within the scope of their 

licenses. The Department therefore 

preliminarily determines that there is an 

absence of de jure control over the 

export activities of China Kingdom, 

Weishan Zhenyu and Yancheng HiKing. 

De Facto Control 

De facto absence of government 

control over exports is based on four 

factors: (1) Whether each exporter sets 

its own export prices independently of 

the government and without the 

approval of a government authority; (2) 

whether each exporter retains the 

proceeds from its sales and makes 

independent decisions regarding the 

disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) whether each exporter has the 

authority to negotiate and sign contracts 

and other agreements; and (4) whether 

each exporter has autonomy from the 

government regarding the selection of 

management. 

China Kingdom, Weishan Zhenyu and 

and Yancheng Hi-King each has asserted 

the following: (1) It establishes its own 

export prices; (2) it negotiates contracts 

without guidance from any 

governmental entities or organizations; 

(3) it makes its own personnel 

decisions; and (4) it retains the proceeds 

of its export sales, uses profits according 

to its business needs, and has the 

authority to sell its assets and to obtain 

loans. The Department verified these 

responses and found no information 

contradicting them. As a result, there is 

a sufficient basis to preliminarily 

determine that China Kingdom, 

Weishan Zhenyu and Yancheng Hi-King 

have demonstrated de facto absence of 

governmental control of their export 

functions and are entitled to separate 

rates. Consequently, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that China 

Kingdom, Weishan Zhenyu and 

Yancheng Hi-King have met the criteria 

for the application of separate rates 

based on the documentation each has 

submitted on the record. 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

1. China Kingdom. Pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A),(C) and (D), and 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department determines that the 

application of total adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) is warranted for 

respondent China Kingdom. When an 

interested party withholds information 

that has been requested by the 

Department, significantly impedes the 

proceeding or provides unverifiable 

information, sections 776(a)(2)(A),(C) 

and (D) of the Act require the use of 

facts otherwise available. 

Information discovered at verification 

indicates that China Kingdom withheld 

certain sales documentation over the 

course of the administrative review and 

at verification regarding its single POR 

sale of subject merchandise to the 

United States. See China Kingdom 

Verification Report. Where a company’s 

request for an antidumping 

administrative review is based entirely 

on a single sale of subject merchandise 

during the POR, it is essential that the 

company provide all documentation 

related to that sale. 

The Department specifically asked 

China Kingdom in several 

questionnaires to describe in full the 

sales-transaction process and to provide 

all sales-related documentation. See 

China Kingdom’s original questionnaire 

response, dated January 19, 2005 (‘‘CK 

Original Response’’), at page 14; China 

Kingdom’s first supplemental 

questionnaire response, dated March 25, 

2005, at page 9; and China Kingdom’s 

second supplemental questionnaire 

response, dated July 20, 2005, at page 1. 

In response to all of these requests, 

China Kingdom never provided any 

documentation identifying any other 

parties to the transaction under review 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 58675 

besides the importer of record. See CK 

Original Response, at exhibits 12–15. 

At verification, the Department again 

requested that China Kingdom provide 

the verification team with all U.S. sales 

documentation. Despite claims by 

company officials present at verification 

that all such documentation for China 

Kingdom’s U.S. sale had been provided, 

in the course of reviewing China 

Kingdom’s sales documentation file, the 

verification team found several 

documents pertaining to the sale under 

review that had not previously been 

provided, including evidence of a 

previously undisclosed financial 

arrangement with a third company not 

previously reported as a party to the 

transaction. These documents 

contradicted the information provided 

by China Kingdom in its questionnaire 

responses, thereby making China 

Kingdom’s questionnaire responses 

unverifiable. 

Additionally, China Kingdom refused 

to provide invoices to this third party 

and other information which had been 

requested by the Department. As such, 

the Department finds that China 

Kingdom withheld information 

specifically requested by the 

Department, and significantly impeded 

the investigation. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

available, the Department may use an 

inference that is adverse to the interests 

of the respondent, if it determines that 

a party has failed to cooperate to the 

best of its ability. The Department finds 

that China Kingdom has failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability 

because it could have complied with the 

Department’s request to respond 

accurately to the Department’s 

questionnaires, requests for 

supplemental information, and 

questions asked at verification. 

Moreover, at no point in the 

administrative review, prior to or during 

verification, did China Kingdom notify 

the Department of the existence of any 

inaccuracies in information it reported 

to the Department, or seek guidance on 

the applicable reporting requirements, 

as contemplated in section 782(c)(1) of 

the Act. In sum, despite the 

Department’s detailed requests for 

information in questionnaires and at 

verification, China Kingdom gave 

insufficient attention to its statutory 

duty to reply accurately to requests for 

factual information. For all of the 

aforementioned reasons, the Department 

finds that China Kingdom failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. For 

a detailed analysis of the Department’s 

decision to apply AFA, see 

Memorandum from James C. Doyle to 

Barbara E. Tillman: Application of 

Adverse Facts Available to China 

Kingdom, dated September 30, 2005. 

Therefore, in selecting from the facts 

available, the Department determines 

that an adverse inference is warranted. 

In accordance with section 776(b) of the 

Act, because of the breadth of the 

missing, unsupported and unverifiable 

data, the Department is applying total 

AFA to China Kingdom. 

2. Weishan Zhenyu. Pursuant to 

sections 776(a)(2)(A),(C) and (D), and 

section 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department determines that the 

application of total AFA is warranted 

for respondent Weishan Zhenyu. When 

an interested party withholds 

information that has been requested by 

the Department, significantly impedes 

the proceeding, or provides information, 

but that information cannot be verified, 

sections 776(a)(2)(A),(C) and (D) of the 

Act provide for the use of facts 

otherwise available. 

In the instant case, the Department 

has determined that facts available is 

warranted due to Weishan Zhenyu’s 

withholding of information concerning 

the actual location of its production 

facilities. Throughout the review, the 

Department relied on Weishan Zhenyu’s 

repeated assertions as to the specific 

location of the company’s production 

facility, as well as the assertion that the 

company had only one production 

facility. At verification however, only 

after the Department discovered that the 

address where the plant was physically 

located was different from the location 

reported to the Department, did 

company officials state that its 

responses to the Department’s questions 

on the location of its production facility 

were incorrect. See Weishan Zhenyu 

Verification Report. This information 

was discovered by the Department only 

after it inquired as to the location of the 

facilities where the Department had 

been taken for verification. In addition, 

Weishan Zhenyu’s explanations for the 

discrepency could also not be verified, 

as the company offered inconsistent 

explanations as to the significance of the 

address originally provided to the 

Department and offered no supporting 

documentation, which was requested by 

the Department. As the Department has 

incomplete information regarding the 

location and number of production 

facilities used by Weishan Zhenyu 

during the POR, the Department could 

not verify that the factors of production 

submitted to the Department were 

related to Weishan Zhenyu or to another 

company, and is thus precluded from 

calculating a margin for Weishan 

Zhenyu. 

Weishan Zhenyu also was unable to 

provide the Department with the 

original source documentation for its 

purchases of the whole crawfish input, 

the most significant input in the 

production of freshwater crawfish tail 

meat. Given that the Department 

normally reviews such documentation 

at verifications of crawfish tail meat, 

and also given the inconsistencies 

provided to the Department regarding 

payment for Weishan Zhenyu’s whole 

crawfish purchases, the Department 

requested the original source 

documentation for the company’s 

purchases of crawfish tail meat. 

Although company officials stated that 

the company did not retain such 

documentation, the Department found 

that the company had retained the 

documentation for other time periods. 

Given that the Department could not 

verify the reported factors of production 

due to both the withholding of 

information regarding the location of 

Weishan Zhenyu’s production facilities, 

as well as the company’s failure to 

provide the Department with source 

documents for the whole crawfish 

input, the Department finds that 

Weishan Zhenyu significantly impeded 

the proceeding and facts available, 

pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A), (C) 

and (D), is warranted. 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

that, in selecting from among the facts 

available, the Department may use an 

inference that is adverse to the interests 

of the party, if it determines that a party 

has failed to cooperate to the best of its 

ability. The Department finds that by 

not providing accurate information 

regarding the location of its production 

facilities despite multiple opportunities 

to do so and by failing to provide the 

Department with the original source 

documentation for the whole crawfish 

input, Weishan Zhenyu failed to 

cooperate to the best of its ability. 

Weishan Zhenyu could have accurately 

and completely replied to the 

Department’s requests for information. 

Because the Department concludes that 

Weishan Zhenyu failed to cooperate to 

the best of its ability, in applying the 

facts otherwise available, the 

Department finds that an adverse 

inference is warranted, pursuant to 

section 776(b) of the Act. For a detailed 

analysis of the Department’s decision to 

apply AFA, see Memorandum from 

James C. Doyle to Barbara E. Tillman: 

Application of Adverse Facts Available 

to Weishan Zhenyu, dated September 

30, 2005. 

3. Yancheng Yaou. As further 

discussed below, pursuant to sections 

776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) of the Act, the 

Department determines that the 

58676 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 

application of total AFA, as part of the 

PRC-wide entity, is warranted for 

respondent Yancheng Yaou, as part of 

the PRC-wide entity, because Yancheng 

Yaou failed to allow the Department to 

verify its questionnaire responses. 

Section 776(a)(2)(D) warrants the use of 

facts otherwise available in reaching a 

determination when information is 

provided, but cannot be verified. The 

Department attempted to conduct 

verification of the questionnaire 

responses of Yancheng Yaou from 

August 2 through August 5, 2005. On 

August 5, 2005, Yancheng Yaou 

withdrew from verification and 

reclaimed all of its verification exhibits. 

See On Site Meetings with Yancheng 

Yaou Memo. On August 5, 2005, 

Yancheng Yaou also submitted a letter 

stating that it was withdrawing from the 

current administrative review. See 

Letter from Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., 

Ltd. to the Department, dated August 5, 

2005. 

Verification is integral to the 

Department’s analysis because it allows 

the Department to satisfy itself that the 

information upon which the Department 

relies in calculating a margin is accurate 

and therefore enables the Department to 

comply with its mandate to calculate 

the dumping margin as accurately as 

possible. In the Initiation Notice, the 

Department stated that if one of the 

companies for which we initiated a 

review does not qualify for a separate 

rate, all other exporters of freshwater 

crawfish tail meat from the PRC who 

have not qualified for a separate rate are 

deemed to be covered by this review as 

part of the single PRC entity of which 

the named exporter is a part. See 

Initiation Notice, at fn. 3. Yancheng 

Yaou notified the Department that it 

would no longer participate in the 

current administrative review and 

therefore could not establish its 

eligibility for a separate rate. The 

Department therefore finds Yancheng 

Yaou to be part of the PRC-wide entity. 

As a result, the Department determines 

that it is necessary to review the single 

PRC-wide entity, including Yancheng 

Yaou, in this proceeding. 

4. PRC-wide Entity. The PRC-wide 

entity (including Yancheng Yaou) did 

not provide verifiable information to the 

Department. Pursuant to section 

776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, as the 

information provided by the PRC-wide 

entity is unverifiable, the Department 

must resort to the facts otherwise 

available. According to section 776(b) of 

the Act, if the Department finds that an 

interested party ‘‘has failed to cooperate 

by not acting to the best of its ability to 

comply with a request for information,’’

the Department may use information 

that is adverse to the interests of the 

party as facts otherwise available. 

Adverse inferences are appropriate ‘‘to 

ensure that the party does not obtain a 

more favorable result by failing to 

cooperate than if it had cooperated 

fully.’’ See Statement of Administrative 

Action (‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the 

Uruguay Round Agreements Act 

(‘‘URAA’’), H.R. Rep. No. 103–316 at 

870 (1994). Furthermore, ‘‘an affirmative 

finding of bad faith on the part of the 

respondent is not required before the 

Department may make an adverse 

inference.’’ Antidumping Duties; 

Countervailing Duties: Final Rule, 62 FR 

27296, 27340 (May 19, 1997). As 

explained above, the PRC-wide entity 

(including Yancheng Yaou) withdrew 

from verification and informed the 

Department that it would not participate 

further in this review. Because the PRCwide entity indicated it would no longer 

cooperate in the proceeding, the 

Department finds it necessary, pursuant 

to sections 776(a)(2)(D) and 776(b) of the 

Act, to use AFA as the basis for these 

preliminary results of review for the 

PRC-wide entity. 

Selection of AFA Rate 

In deciding which facts to use as 

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

CFR 351.308(c)(1) authorize the 

Department to rely on information 

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

determination in the investigation, (3) 

any previous review or determination, 

or (4) any information placed on the 

record. In reviews, it is the Department’s 

practice to select, as AFA, the highest 

rate determined for any respondent in 

any segment of the proceeding. See, e.g., 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China; Notice of 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 68 FR 19504 

(April 21, 2003). 

The Court of International Trade 

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

consistently upheld the Department’s 

practice. See Rhone Poulenc, Inc. v. 

United States, 899 F.2d 1185, 1190 (Fed. 

Circ. 1990) (‘‘Rhone Poulenc’’); NSK Ltd. 

v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1312, 

1335 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2004) (upholding a 

73.55 percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a LTFV 

investigation); see also Kompass Food 

Trading Int’l v. United States, 24 CIT 

678, 689 (2000) (upholding a 51.16% 

total AFA rate, the highest available 

dumping margin from a different, fully 

cooperative respondent); and Shanghai 

Taoen International Trading Co., Ltd. v. 

United States, Slip Op. 05–22, at 16 (CIT 

February 17, 2005) (upholding a 223.01 

percent total AFA rate, the highest 

available dumping margin from a 

different respondent in a previous 

administrative review). 

The Department’s practice when 

selecting an adverse rate from among 

the possible sources of information is to 

ensure that the margin is sufficiently 

adverse ‘‘as to effectuate the purpose of 

the facts available role to induce 

respondents to provide the Department 

with complete and accurate information 

in a timely manner.’’ See Static Random 

Access Memory Semiconductors from 

Taiwan; Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value, 63 FR 8909, 8932 

(February 23, 1998). The Department’s 

practice also ensures ‘‘that the party 

does not obtain a more favorable result 

by failing to cooperate than if it had 

cooperated fully.’’ See SAA at 870. See 

also Final Determination of Sales at 

Less than Fair Value: Certain Frozen 

and Canned Warmwater Shrimp from 

Brazil, 69 FR 76910 (December 23, 

2004); See also D&L Supply Co. v. 

United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1223 

(Fed. Cir. 1997). In choosing the 

appropriate balance between providing 

respondents with an incentive to 

respond accurately and imposing a rate 

that is reasonably related to the 

respondent’s prior commercial activity, 

selecting the highest prior margin 

‘‘reflects a common sense inference that 

the highest prior margin is the most 

probative evidence of current margins, 

because, if it were not so, the importer, 

knowing of the rule, would have 

produced current information showing 

the margin to be less.’’ Rhone Poulenc, 

899 F.2d at 1190. 

Consistent with the statute, court 

precedent, and its practice, the 

Department has assigned the rate of 

223.01 percent, the highest rate 

calculated in any segment of the 

proceeding, to China Kingdom, Weishan 

Zhenyu, and the PRC-wide entity as 

AFA. See, e.g., Rescission of Second 

New Shipper Review and Final Results 

and Partial Rescission of First 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Brake Rotors from the People’s 

Republic of China, 64 FR 61581 61584 

(November 12, 1999). See 1999–2000 

Final Results. As discussed further 

below, this rate has been corroborated. 

Corroboration of Secondary 

Information Used as AFA 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that 

when the Department relies on the facts 

otherwise available and relies on 

‘‘secondary information,’’ the 

Department shall, to the extent 

practicable, corroborate that information 

from independent sources reasonably at 

the Department’s disposal. The SAA 

states that ‘‘corroborate’’ means to 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 58677 

determine that the information used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. The 

Department has determined that to have 

probative value, information must be 

reliable and relevant. See Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 61 

FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). 

The SAA also states that independent 

sources used to corroborate such 

evidence may include, for example, 

published price lists, official import 

statistics and customs data, and 

information obtained from interested 

parties during the particular 

investigation. See Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage 

Ceramic Station Post Insulators from 

Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value: Live Swine from 

Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005). 

The reliability of the AFA rate was 

determined by the calculation of the 

margin based on sales and production 

data of a respondent in a prior review, 

and on the most appropriate surrogate 

value information available to the 

Department, chosen from submissions 

by the parties in that review, as well as 

information gathered by the Department 

itself. Furthermore, the calculation of 

this margin was subject to comment 

from interested parties in the 

proceeding. See 1999–2000 Final 

Results. The Department has received 

no information to date that warrants 

revisiting the issue of the reliability of 

the rate calculation itself. This rate has 

been used as AFA in every subsequent 

segment of this proceeding and the 

Department has received no comments 

challenging the reliability of the margin. 

No information has been presented in 

the current review. Thus, the 

Department finds that the margin 

calculated in the 1999–2000 review is 

reliable. 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, the Department will 

consider information reasonably at its 

disposal to determine whether a margin 

continues to have relevance. Where 

circumstances indicate that the selected 

margin is not appropriate as AFA, the 

Department will disregard the margin 

and determine an appropriate margin. 

For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from 

Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 

(February 22, 1996), the Department 

disregarded the highest margin in that 

case as adverse best information 

available (the predecessor to facts 

available) because the margin was based 

on another company’s uncharacteristic 

business expense resulting in an 

unusually high margin. Similarly, the 

Department does not apply a margin 

that has been discredited. See D & L 

Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F.3d 

1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the 

Department will not use a margin that 

has been judicially invalidated). None of 

these unusual circumstances are present 

here. As there is no information on the 

record of this review that indicates that 

this rate is not relevant as AFA for 

China Kingdom, Weishan Zhenyu and 

the PRC-wide entity, we determine that 

this rate has probative value. 

Accordingly, we determine that the 

highest rate determined in any segment 

of this administrative proceeding (i.e., 

223.01 percent) is in accord with section 

776(c)’s requirement that secondary 

information be corroborated (i.e., that it 

have probative value). 

Normal-Value Comparisons 

To determine whether Yancheng HiKing’s sales of the subject merchandise 

to the United States were made at prices 

below NV, Yancheng Hi-King’s United 

States prices were compared to NV, as 

described in the ‘‘United States Price’’

and ‘‘Normal Value’’ sections of this 

notice. 

United States Price 

For Yancheng Hi-King, the 

Department based United States price 

on export price (‘‘EP’’) in accordance 

with section 772(a) of the Act, because 

the first sales to unaffiliated purchasers 

were made prior to importation, and 

constructed export price (‘‘CEP’’) was 

not otherwise warranted by the facts on 

the record. We calculated EP based on 

packed prices from the exporter to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. Where applicable, foreign inland 

freight, foreign brokerage and handling 

expenses, and ocean freight were 

deducted from the starting price (gross 

unit price) in accordance with section 

772(c) of the Act. 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine NV 

using an FOP methodology if the 

merchandise is exported from an NME 

country and the available 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 will base NV on the factors 

of production because the presence of 

government controls on various aspects 

of these economies renders price 

comparisons and the calculation of 

production costs invalid under its 

normal methodologies. See Tapered 

Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, 

Finished or Unfinished, From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 29744, 

39754 (July 11, 2005). 

For purposes of calculating NV, we 

selected surrogate values for the PRC 

factors of production in accordance with 

section 773(c)(1) of the Act. Factors of 

production include, but are not limited 

to, hours of labor required, quantities of 

raw materials employed, amounts of 

energy and other utilities consumed, 

and representative capital costs, 

including depreciation. See section 

773(c)(3) of the Act. In choosing 

surrogate values, we selected, where 

possible, a publicly available value 

which was an average non-export value, 

representative of a range of prices 

within the POR or most 

contemporaneous with the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates from the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 75294, 75300 

(December 16, 2004) (‘‘Chlorinated 

Isocyanurates’’). In selecting the 

surrogate values, we considered the 

quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the data. See 

Manganese Metal from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 63 FR 12442 

(March 13, 1998). We used the usage 

rates reported by the respondents for 

materials, energy, labor, by-products, 

and packing. For a more detailed 

explanation of the methodology used in 

calculating various surrogate values, see 

Factor Valuation Memo. 

Factor Valuations 

In accordance with section 773(c) of 

the Act, the Department calculated NV 

based on the FOPs reported by the 

Yancheng Hi-King for the POR. To 

calculate NV, the reported per-unit 

factor quantities was multiplied by 

publicly available surrogate values 

(except where noted below). As 

appropriate, we adjusted input prices by 

including freight costs to reflect 

delivered prices. For a detailed 

explanation of all surrogate values used 

for respondents, see Factor Valuation 

Memo. 

Except where discussed below, we 

valued raw material inputs using 

September 2003-August 2004 weightedaverage Indian import values derived 

from the World Trade Atlas online 

(‘‘WTA’’) (see Factor Valuation Memo). 

The Indian import statistics we obtained 

from the WTA were published by the 

58678 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 

DGCI&S, Ministry of Commerce of India 

and are contemporaneous with the POR. 

As the Indian surrogate values were 

denominated in rupees, they were 

converted to U.S. dollars using the 

exchange rate for India on the date of 

the applicable sale. The daily exchange 

rate was the exchange rate data from the 

Department’s website, which are taken 

from publicly available data from the 

Federal Reserve and Dow Jones. See 

http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/ 

index.html. Where we could not obtain 

publicly available information 

contemporaneous with the POR with 

which to value factors, we adjusted the 

publicly available information for 

inflation using Indian wholesale price 

indices (‘‘WPIs’’) as published in the 

International Monetary Fund’s 

International Financial Statistics 

(‘‘IFS’’). See Factor Valuation Memo. 

In instances where we relied on 

Indian import data to value inputs, in 

accordance with the Department’s 

practice, we excluded imports from both 

NME countries and countries deemed to 

maintain broadly available, nonindustry-specific subsidies which may 

benefit all exporters to all export 

markets (i.e., Indonesia, South Korea, 

and Thailand) from our surrogate value 

calculations. See, e.g., Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value: Certain Automotive 

Replacement Glass Windshields from 

the People’s Republic of China, 67 FR 

6482 (February 12, 2002) and 

accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 1. See, also, 

Notice of Preliminary Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 

Postponement of Final Determination, 

and Affirmative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 

28, 2003), unchanged in the 

Department’s final determination at 69 

FR 20594 (April 16, 2004). Also 

consistent with our policy, we 

excluded, in a few instances, import 

data that appeared to be aberrational 

when compared to the average import 

value of all countries not excluded. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Color 

Television Receivers From the People’s 

Republic of China, 69 FR 20594, April 

16, 2004, and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 5. 

Finally, imports that were labeled as 

originating from an ‘‘unspecified’’

country were excluded from the average 

value, because the Department could 

not be certain that they were not from 

either an NME or a country with general 

export subsidies. 

Surrogate Valuations 

To value the input of whole live 

crawfish we used publicly available 

data for Spanish imports of whole live 

crawfish from Portugal. The Department 

obtained the data from ‘‘aduanas e 

I.especiales,’’ the Spanish Customs 

database for foreign trade statistics 

(Estadisticas Comercio Exterior). 

The Department derived a price for 

polyethylene bags during the POR from 

Indian import statistics for HTS 

subheading 3923.2100 from the WTA. 

To value a by-product, crawfish scrap, 

the Department used a price quote from 

Indonesia for wet crab and shrimp 

shells. See Factor Valuation Memo, 

Attachment 5. The Department has used 

this surrogate value in previous 

segments of this proceeding and 

interested parties have not submitted 

any additional information for valuing 

this by-product. 

Section 351.408(c)(3) of the 

Department’s regulations requires the 

use of a regression-based wage rate. 

Therefore, to value the labor input, the 

Department used the regression-based 

wage rate for China published by Import 

Administration on its Web site. See 

http://www.ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/ 

index.html. 

To calculate the cost of coal, the 

Department used Indian import data for 

steam coal (HTS subheading 2701.1902) 

during the POR from the WTA. 

To value water, the Department used 

the industrial water rates within the 

Maharashtra Province of India from June 

2003. To achieve comparability of water 

prices to the factors reported for the 

POR, we adjusted this factor value to 

reflect inflation to the POR using the 

WPI for India, as published in the 2005 

IFS. 

To value SG&A, factory overhead and 

profit, the Department used the 2002–

2003 financial statements from Nekkanti 

Sea Foods Ltd. (‘‘Nekkanti’’). See Factor 

Valuation Memo, at Attachment 13. 

For foreign inland freight, respondent 

reported that all raw materials were 

delivered by truck. Respondent reported 

the distance of the material inputs in 

kilometers, from the supplier of the 

material input to the factory. In 

calculating the freight rate, the 

Department used the shorter of the 

reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory, 

in accordance with the Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit’s decision in 

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

1401 (Fed. Cir. 1997). To value the cost 

of truck freight, we used an average 

truck freight cost based on Indian 

market truck freight rates on a permetric ton basis published in the Iron 

and Steel Newsletter, April 2002, and 

inflated the value to be 

contemporaneous to the POR. To derive 

the freight cost for each material input, 

the Department multiplied the surrogate 

freight value by the freight distance and 

subsequently multiplied this value by 

the reported quantity of the input 

consumed in the production of one unit 

of the subject merchandise during the 

POR. The Department added the freight 

expense to the cost of the material input 

to determine gross material costs. 

To value the inland freight expense 

for packaged crawfish tail meat from the 

producer to the port of export, the 

Department used an Indian refrigerated 

truck freight rate based on price 

quotations from CTC Freight Carriers of 

Delhi, India, placed on the record of the 

antidumping investigation of Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

from the People’s Republic of China. 

This rate was contemporaneous with the 

POR. The Department has placed this 

information on the record of this 

proceeding (see Factor Valuation Memo, 

Attachment 10). 

To value brokerage and handling, the 

Department used a simple average of the 

publicly summarized version of the 

average value for brokerage and 

handling expenses reported in the U.S. 

sales listings in the February 28, 2005, 

submission from Essar Steel Ltd. (‘‘Essar 

Steel’’) in the antidumping duty 

administrative review of Certain HotRolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from 

India, and the March 9, 2004, 

submission from Pidilite Industries Ltd. 

(‘‘Pidilite’’) in the antidumping duty 

investigation of Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India. See Public 

version of section C questionnaire 

response from Essar Steel Limited, 

dated February 28, 2005; and Public 

version of section C questionnaire 

response from Pidilite Industries Ltd., 

dated March 9, 2004. The reported rate 

of Essar Steel was contemporaneous 

with the POR. Since the Pidilite rate 

was dated from October 2002 through 

September 2003, it was necessary to 

inflate the rate to be contemporaneous 

with the POR. The Department has 

placed this information on the record of 

this proceeding (see Factor Valuation 

Memo, Attachment 11). 

Where respondent used an NME 

shipper, we valued international freight 

expenses using freight quotes from 

Maersk Sealand, a market-economy 

shipper. These quotes have been used in 

prior reviews of this case. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 194 / Friday, October 7, 2005 / Notices 58679 

1The Order for certain frozen warmwater shrimp 

from the PRC was published on February 1, 2005. 

See Notice of Amended Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping 

Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the People’s Republic of China, 70 FR 05149 

(February 1, 2005) (‘‘PRC Shrimp Order’’). 

Therefore, a request for a new shipper review based 

on the semi-annual anniversary month, August, was 

due to the Department by the final day of August 

2005. See 19 CFR 351.214(d)(1). 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and New 

Shipper Reviews, and Final Partial 

Rescission of Administrative Review, 66 

FR 20634 (April 24, 2001). We obtained 

quotes for each month of the POR, from 

the PRC to Long Beach, and took a 

simple average. See Factor Valuation 

Memo, Attachment 12. 

Currency Conversions 

We made currency conversions using 

exchange rates obtained from the Web 

site of Import Administration at http:// 

ia.ita.doc.gov/exchange/index.html. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

The Department preliminarily finds 

that the following margins exist for the 

following exporters under review during 

the period September 1, 2003, through 

August 31, 2004: 

FRESHWATER CRAWFISH TAIL MEAT

FROM THE PRC 

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

China Kingdom International .... 223.01 

Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., 

Ltd. ........................................ 223.01 

Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture 

Developing Co., Ltd. ............. 32.53 

PRC-wide Rate (including 

Yancheng Yaou Seafood 

Co., Ltd.) ............................... 223.01 

The Department will disclose the 

calculations used in our analysis to 

parties to this proceeding within five 

days of the date of publication of this 

notice. Case briefs from interested 

parties may be submitted not later than 

October 31, 2005, pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.309(c). Rebuttal briefs, limited to 

issues raised in the case briefs, will be 

due not later than November 7, 2005, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties 

who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs 

in this proceeding are requested to 

submit with each argument (1) a 

statement of the issue and (2) a brief 

summary of the argument. Parties are 

also encouraged to provide a summary 

of the arguments not to exceed five 

pages and a table of statutes, regulations 

and cases cited. Any interested party 

may request a hearing within 30 days of 

publication of this notice. 

Interested parties who wish to request 

a hearing or to participate if one is 

requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration, Room B–099, 

within 30 days of the date of publication 

of this notice. Requests should include 

(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 case briefs and rebuttal 

briefs. 

The Department will issue the final 

results of this administrative review, 

including the results of its analysis of 

issues raised in any such written briefs 

or at the hearing, if held, no later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. 

Assessment of Antidumping Duties 

The Department will determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. The Department 

will issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP within 15 

days of publication of the final results 

of this review. For assessment purposes 

for companies with a calculated rate, 

where possible, the Department 

calculated importer-specific assessment 

rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat 

from the PRC on a per-unit basis. 

Specifically, the Department divided the 

total dumping margins (calculated as 

the difference between normal value 

and export price) for each importer by 

the total quantity of subject 

merchandise sold to that importer 

during the POR to calculate a per-unit 

assessment amount. The Department 

will direct CBP to assess importerspecific assessment rates based on the 

resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) 

rates by the weight in kilograms of each 

entry of the subject merchandise during 

the POR. 

Cash Deposits 

The following cash-deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results for 

shipments of the subject merchandise 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date of the final results, as 

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

Act: (1) For subject merchandise 

exported by China Kingdom and 

Weishan Zhenyu, the cash-deposit rate 

will be equal to 223.01 percent; (2) for 

subject merchandise exported by 

Yancheng Hi-King, we will establish a 

per-kilogram cash deposit rate which 

will be equivalent to the companyspecific cash deposit established in this 

review; (3) the cash-deposit rate for PRC 

exporters who received a separate rate 

in a prior segment of the proceeding 

will continue to be the rate assigned in 

that segment of the proceeding; (4) for 

all other PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate 

(including Yancheng Yaou), the cashdeposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate 

of 223.01 percent; (5) for all non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise, the 

cash-deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporter that 

supplied that exporter. 

These deposit requirements, when 

imposed, shall remain in effect until 

publication of the final results of the 

next administrative review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice 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. 

This administrative review and notice 

is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) 

and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.221(b)(4). 

Dated: September 30, 2005. 

Barbara E. Tillman, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05–20287 Filed 10–6–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–893] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

From the People’s Republic of China: 

Initiation of New Shipper Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATES: October 7, 2005. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the ‘‘Department’’) has determined that 

a request for a new shipper review of 

the antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from the 

People’s Republic of China (‘‘PRC’’), 

received before August 31, 2005,1 meets