Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 47885 

calculation program for the Final 

Results inadvertently used the 

quantities of the individual CEP sales, 

rather than the total quantity of all CEP 

sales that Anvifish’s affiliated U.S. 

customer made from the affected 

shipment. The specific calculation 

change to correct this ministerial error 

can be found in the ‘‘Memorandum to 

the File, through Alex Villanueva, 

Program Manager, Office 9, Import 

Administration, from Matthew Renkey, 

Senior Analyst, Office 9, Subject: 

Amended Final Results Analysis for 

Anvifish Co., Ltd.,’’ (August 6, 2008) 

(‘‘Amended Final Results Analysis 

Memo’’). The Amended Final Results 

Analysis Memo is on file in the Central 

Records Unit, room 1117 at the 

Department’s headquarters. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e), 

we are amending the Final Results of 

Anvifish’s new shipper review of 

certain frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. 

The revised final weighted–average 

dumping margin for Anvifish is as 

follows: 

CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM

VIETNAM - WEIGHTED–AVERAGE

DUMPING MARGINS

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Deposit Rate 

Anvifish Co., Ltd. .......... 0.00 % 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

This cash deposit rate will be effective 

retroactively on any entries made on or 

after June 30, 2008, for all shipments of 

the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for subject 

merchandise produced and exported by 

Anvifish, no cash deposit will be 

required; (2) for subject merchandise 

exported by Anvifish, but not 

manufactured by Anvifish, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

Vietnam–wide rate (i.e., 63.88 percent); 

and (3) for subject merchandise 

manufactured by Anvifish, but exported 

by any other party, the cash deposit rate 

will be the rate applicable to the 

exporter. These cash deposit 

requirement will remain in effect until 

further notice. 

Assessment 

The Department intends to issue 

assessment instructions to CBP 15 days 

after the publication date of these 

amended final results of review. Where 

an importer (or customer)-specific per–

unit rate is zero or de minimis, we will 

instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate 

entries of subject merchandise without 

regard to antidumping duties that are 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after June 30, 

2008, and to grant a refund for any 

overcollection on such entries if the 

importer makes such a request pursuant 

to 19 USC 1520(a)(4). See 19 CFR 

351.106(c)(2). 

These amended final results are 

published in accordance with sections 

751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 6, 2008. 

David A. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18948 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Notice of Amended Final Results of 

Third Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets 

from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: On March 24, 2008, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the final results of the third 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen fish fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’). See 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission, 73 FR 15479 (March 24, 

2008) (‘‘Final Results’’). The period of 

review (‘‘POR’’) covered August 1, 2005, 

through July 31, 2006. We are amending 

our Final Results to correct ministerial 

errors made in the calculation of the 

antidumping duty margins for of East 

Sea Seafoods Joint Venture Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘ESS’’), Can Tho Agricultural and 

Animal Products Import Export 

Company (‘‘CATACO’’), and QVD Food 

Company (‘‘QVD’’) pursuant to section 

751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 

amended (the ‘‘Act’’) and an order from 

the Court of International Trade (‘‘CIT’’). 

See Catfish Farmers of America v. 

United States, Consol Court No. 08–

00111, (CIT July 22, 2008) (‘‘CIT 

Order’’). 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex 

Villanueva, 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) 482–3208. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 19, 2007, the 

Department of Commerce (the 

‘‘Department’’) published in the Federal 

Register the preliminary results of this 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen fish fillets from Vietnam. 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) 

(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). On March 24, 

2008, the Department published the 

Final Results in this administrative 

review. On March 24, 2008, ESS and the 

Catfish Farmers of America and 

individual U.S. catfish processors 

(‘‘Petitioners’’) filed timely allegations 

that the Department made ministerial 

errors in the Final Results. On March 25, 

2008, QVD filed timely allegations that 

the Department made ministerial errors 

in the Final Results. On March 31, 2008, 

the Petitioners submitted rebuttal 

comments to QVD’s March 25, 2008, 

ministerial error allegations. 

Following the publication of the Final 

Results, parties appealed certain aspects 

of the Department’s Final Results with 

the CIT. Upon request by the 

Department, the CIT granted a consent 

motion for leave to (i) correct certain 

ministerial errors in calculation of the 

final antidumping duty margin in the 

Final Results, (ii) recalculate the 

antidumping margins accordingly, and 

(iii) issue and publish the amended final 

results on or before August 15, 2008. 

See CIT Order. 

Scope of Order 

The product covered by this order is 

frozen fish fillets, including regular, 

shank, and strip fillets and portions 

thereof, whether or not breaded or 

marinated, of the species Pangasius 

Bocourti, Pangasius Hypophthalmus 

(also known as Pangasius Pangasius), 

and Pangasius Micronemus. Frozen fish 

fillets are lengthwise cuts of whole fish. 

The fillet products covered by the scope 

include boneless fillets with the belly 

flap intact (‘‘regular’’ fillets), boneless 

fillets with the belly flap removed 

(‘‘shank’’ fillets), boneless shank fillets 

cut into strips (‘‘fillet strips/finger’’), 

which include fillets cut into strips, 

chunks, blocks, skewers, or any other 

shape. Specifically excluded from the 

scope are frozen whole fish (whether or 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

47886 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 

1See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy 

Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import 

Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third 

Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1, 

2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 

2See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy 

Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import 

Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Third 

Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1, 

2007). This HTS went into effect on March 1, 2007. 

3See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy 

Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import 

Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: Second 

Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (February 

2, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 1, 

2007. 

4See Memorandum to the File, from Cindy 

Robinson, Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, Import 

Administration, Subject: Frozen Fish Fillets: 

Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (January 

30, 2007). This HTS went into effect on February 

1, 2007. 

5Until July 1, 2004, these products were 

classifiable under tariff article codes 0304.20.60.30 

(Frozen Catfish Fillets), 0304.20.60.96 (Frozen Fish 

Fillets, NESOI), 0304.20.60.43 (Frozen Freshwater 

Fish Fillets) and 0304.20.60.57 (Frozen Sole Fillets) 

of the HTSUS. Until February 1, 2007, these 

products were classifiable under tariff article code 

0304.20.60.33 (Frozen Fish Fillets of the species 

Pangasius including basa and tra) of the HTSUS. 

not dressed), frozen steaks, and frozen 

belly–flap nuggets. Frozen whole 

dressed fish are deheaded, skinned, and 

eviscerated. Steaks are bone–in, crosssection cuts of dressed fish. Nuggets are 

the belly–flaps. 

The subject merchandise will be 

hereinafter referred to as frozen ‘‘basa’’

and ‘‘tra’’ fillets, which are the 

Vietnamese common names for these 

species of fish. These products are 

classifiable under tariff article codes 

1604.19.40001, 1604.19.50002, 

0305.59.40003, 0304.29.60334 (Frozen 

Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius 

including basa and tra) of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).5 This order 

covers all frozen fish fillets meeting the 

above specification, regardless of tariff 

classification. Although the HTSUS 

subheading is provided for convenience 

and customs purposes, our written 

description of the scope of the order is 

dispositive. 

Ministerial Errors 

A ministerial error is defined in 

section 751(h) of the Act and further 

clarified in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as ‘‘an 

error in addition, subtraction, or other 

arithmetic function, clerical error 

resulting from inaccurate copying, 

duplication, or the like, and any other 

similar type of unintentional error 

which the Secretary considers 

ministerial.’’

ESS 

After analyzing ESS’s single 

comment, we have determined, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), that 

a ministerial error existed in the 

calculation for ESS in the Final Results 

because the Department inadvertently 

failed to change the surrogate value for 

fish as stated in Comment 4 of the 

Memorandum from Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, to David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration, Subject: Issues and 

Decision Memorandum for the Final 

Results of Administrative Review: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Issues 

and Decision Memo’’). We are correcting 

this error for these amended results; 

however, the correction of this error 

does not change ESS’s final margin. For 

a detailed discussion of this ministerial 

error, as well as the Department’s 

analysis, see Memorandum to the File, 

through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, 

from Catherine Bertrand, Senior Case 

Analyst, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9: 

Analysis Memorandum for the 

Amended Final Results of ESS dated 

April 18, 2008. 

CATACO 

We agree with the Petitioners that, in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e), we 

made a ministerial error, with regard to 

the margin assigned to CATACO. In the 

Final Results, we incorrectly stated that 

CATACO was included in the Vietnam–

wide entity and was assigned a margin 

of 63.88 percent. However, in the 

Preliminary Results CATACO received 

an individual adverse facts available 

margin of 80.88 percent and, as no 

interested parties provided comments 

on CATACO’s margin in the case briefs, 

the individual adverse facts available 

margin for CATACO should have been 

unchanged and listed as 80.88 percent. 

QVD 

QVD alleged eight ministerial error 

allegations: (1) the Department 

incorrectly applied the international 

freight charges pursuant to comment 5D 

of the Issues and Decision Memo; (2) the 

Department incorrectly included the 

undepreciated balance of the surrogate 

company’s assets instead of the amount 

of annual depreciation corresponding to 

the financial year; (3) the Department 

did not exclude imports from ‘‘Other 

Asia, nes’’ in the surrogate value 

calculation for banding; (4) the 

Department did not correctly apply a 

revised gross unit price for certain 

verification findings; (5) the Department 

did not correctly exclude certain sales 

from the margin calculation based on 

verification findings; (6) the Department 

did not correctly apply the partial 

adverse facts available to QVD’s direct 

and indirect labor pursuant to comment 

6A of the Issues and Decision Memo; (7) 

the Department incorrectly used a non–

corrugated paperboard surrogate value 

for cartons despite QVD s statement that 

its cartons were of corrugated 

paperboard in its June 12, 2007, 

questionnaire response; and (8) the 

Department neglected to deflate the 

whole fish surrogate value. 

The Petitioners argue that the 

Department intended to value QVD’s 

cartons using the non–corrugated 

paperboard surrogate value as explained 

in Comment 6C of the Issues and 

Decision Memorandum. Therefore, the 

Department should not value QVD’s 

cartons using a corrugated paperboard 

surrogate value. The Petitioners also 

argue that QVD is incorrectly requesting 

that the Department deflate the fish 

surrogate value because this surrogate 

value is contemporaneous with the 

POR. 

We agree that seven of the eight 

allegations constitute inadvertent 

ministerial errors pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 

351.224(e). We disagree with QVD’s 

allegation that the fish surrogate value 

should be deflated. Because the whole 

fish surrogate value source is from the 

financial statements of Gachihata 

Aquaculture Farms Ltd. covering the 

fiscal year period July 1, 2006 through 

June 30, 2007 and the POR is August 1, 

2006 through July 31, 2007, there is 

significant overlap between the periods 

and, therefore, the data are considered 

contemporaneous. We also disagree 

with Petitioners that the Department 

correctly valued cartons using a non–

corrugated surrogate value. In its 

questionnaire response QVD indicated 

that it used corrugated paperboard. See 

QVD’s June 12, 2008, Questionnaire 

Response. As a result, we agree with 

QVD that the Department made a 

ministerial error in using a non–

corrugated paperboard surrogate value 

for cartons pursuant to 19 C.F.R. 

351.224(e). For a detailed discussion of 

the Department’s analysis, see 

Memorandum to the File, through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9, from Catherine 

Bertrand, Senior Case Analyst, AD/CVD 

Operations, Office 9: Analysis 

Memorandum for the Amended Final 

Results of QVD dated April 18, 2008. 

Therefore, in accordance with section 

751(h) of the Act, 19 CFR 351.224(e) and 

the CIT Order, we are amending the 

Final Results of the administrative 

review of certain frozen fish fillets from 

Vietnam. The final weighted–average 

dumping margins are as follows: 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 159 / Friday, August 15, 2008 / Notices 47887 

CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM

VIETNAM

Manufacturer/Exporter Weighted–Average 

Margin (Percent) 

ESS ............................... 0.00 

QVD .............................. 0.00 

CATACO ....................... 80.88 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

In this case, the weighted–average 

dumping margins for ESS and QVD did 

not change as a result of correcting the 

errors described above. Therefore, it is 

not necessary for the Department to 

amend the cash deposit instructions 

already submitted to the U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (‘‘CBP’’) for ESS 

and QVD. With respect to CATACO, 

however, we will instruct CBP to collect 

antidumping duties for all shipments of 

the subject merchandise entered, or 

withdrawn from warehouse, for 

consumption as provided for by section 

751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, based on these 

amended final results, retroactively 

effective to March 24, 2008, the date of 

publication of the Final Results. 

Assessment 

Because the Department is currently 

enjoined from liquidation of any entries 

of subject merchandise exported by ESS 

and QVD, will not issue liquidation 

instructions to CBP until the conclusion 

of the litigation. CBP has already been 

instructed to liquidate CATACO’s 

entries at the rate in effect at the time 

of entry. 

These amended final results are 

published in accordance with sections 

751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: August 12, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–19082 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

University of Connecticut, et al.; Notice 

of Consolidated Decision on 

Applications for Duty-Free Entry of 

Electron Microscopes 

This is a decision consolidated 

pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 

Educational, Scientific, and Cultural 

Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. 

L. 89–651, as amended by Pub. L. 106–

36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). 

Related records can be viewed between 

8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. in Room 2104, U.S. 

Department of Commerce, and 

Constitution Avenue., NW., 

Washington, DC. 

Docket Number: 08–033. Applicant: 

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 

06269–3136. Instrument: Electron 

Microscope, Model Tecnai G2 Spirit 

TWIN. Manufacturer: FEI Company, 

Czech Republic. Intended Use: See 

notice at 73 FR 42549, July 22, 2008. 

Docket Number: 08–034 Applicant: 

Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 

02115. Instrument: Electron Microscope, 

Model Tecnai G2 F20. Manufacturer: FEI 

Company, The Netherlands. Intended 

Use: See notice at 73 FR 42549, July 22, 

2008. 

Comments: None received. Decision: 

Approved. No instrument of equivalent 

scientific value to the foreign 

instrument, for such purposes as these 

instruments are intended to be used, 

was bing manufactured in the United 

States at the time the instruments were 

ordered. Reasons: Each foreign 

instrument is an electron microscope 

and is intended for research or scientific 

educational uses requiring an electron 

microscope. We know of no electron 

microscope, or any other instrument 

suited to these purposes, which was 

being manufactured in the United States 

at the time of the order of each 

instrument. 

Dated: August 11, 2008. 

Faye Robinson, 

Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, 

Import Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–18847 Filed 8–14–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–M 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–570–875] 

Continuation of Antidumping Duty 

Order on Non–Malleable Cast Iron Pipe 

Fittings from the People’s Republic of 

China 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: As a result of the 

determinations by the Department of 

Commerce (‘‘Department’’) and the 

International Trade Commission (‘‘ITC’’) 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on non–malleable cast iron pipe 

fittings (‘‘non–malleable pipe fittings’’) 

from the People’s Republic of China 

(‘‘PRC’’) would likely lead to a 

continuation or recurrence of dumping 

and material injury to an industry in the 

United States, the Department is 

publishing a notice of continuation for 

the antidumping duty order. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 15, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zev 

Primor or Juanita Chen, AD/CVD 

Operations, Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th 

Street & Constitution Avenue, NW, 

Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 

482–4114 or (202) 482–1904, 

respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: 

On March 3, 2008, the Department 

initiated and the ITC instituted sunset 

reviews of the antidumping duty order 

on non–malleable pipe fittings from the 

PRC pursuant to section 751(c) of the 

Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the 

‘‘Act’’). See Initiation of Five-year 

(‘‘Sunset’’) Reviews, 73 FR 11392 

(March 3, 2008). 

As a result of its review, the 

Department determined that revocation 

of the antidumping duty order on non–

malleable pipe fittings from the PRC 

would likely to lead to a continuation or 

recurrence of dumping and, therefore, 

notified the ITC of the magnitude of the 

margins likely to prevail should the 

order be revoked. See Non–Malleable 

Cast Iron Pipe Fittings from the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of the 

Expedited Sunset Review of the 

Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 39656 

(July 10, 2008). 

On July 16, 2008, the ITC determined, 

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, 

that revocation of the antidumping duty 

order on non–malleable pipe fittings 

from the PRC would likely lead to a 

continuation or recurrence of material 

injury to an industry in the United 

States within a reasonably foreseeable 

future. See Non–Malleable Cast Iron 

Pipe Fittings from the People’s Republic 

of China (Inv. No. 731–TA–990 

(Review)), USITC Publication 4023 (July 

2008) and 73 FR 45075 (August 1, 2008). 

Scope of the Order 

For purposes of this review, the 

products covered are finished and 

unfinished non–malleable cast iron pipe 

fittings with an inside diameter ranging 

from 1/4 inch to 6 inches, whether 

threaded or un–threaded, regardless of 

industry or proprietary specifications. 

The subject fittings include elbows, ells, 

tees, crosses, and reducers as well as 

flanged fittings. These pipe fittings are 

also known as ‘‘cast iron pipe fittings’’

or ‘‘gray iron pipe fittings.’’ These cast 

iron pipe fittings are normally produced 

to ASTM A–126 and ASME B.l6.4 

specifications and are threaded to 

ASME B1.20.1 specifications. Most 

building codes require that these 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES