Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6119 

1On November 6, 2007, the Department sent a 

letter informing parties that the POR was extended 

until February 26, 2007. Upon further review of the 

record, the Department determines that an 

extension of the POR is unnecessary. 

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: Third 

Addition of Harmonized Tariff Number, (March 1, 

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

4See 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. 

5See 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. 

6Until 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 

Continued 

Dated: January 22, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–1875 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial 

Rescission and Preliminary Results of 

the First New Shipper Reviews 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting new 

shipper reviews (‘‘NSRs’’) of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen fish fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam (‘‘Vietnam’’) that 

cover the period of review (‘‘POR’’) of 

August 1, 2006, through January 31, 

2007.1 See Notice of Antidumping Duty 

Order: Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from 

the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

47909 (August 12, 2003) (‘‘Order’’). On 

March 22, 2007, the Department 

initiated the semi-annual new shipper 

reviews for Vinh Quang Fisheries 

Corporation (‘‘Vinh Quang’’), Ngoc Thai 

Company (‘‘Ngoc Thai’’), and Anvifish 

Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anvifish’’). See Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of 

Antidumping Duty New Shipper 

Reviews, 72 FR 15653 (April 2, 2007). 

We are preliminarily rescinding the 

new shipper reviews of Vinh Quang and 

Ngoc Thai because at the time of their 

requests for a new shipper review, the 

deadline for such requests had passed, 

pursuant to section 351.214(c) of the 

Department’s regulations. We 

preliminarily determine that Anvifish 

has made sales in the United States at 

less than 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 importerspecific assessment rates are above de 

minimis. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 1, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia 

Hancock and Nicole Bankhead, 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) 482–1394 and (202) 

482–9068, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Case History 

General 

On January 31, February 21, and 

February 28, 2007, the Department 

received requests for new shipper 

reviews from Vinh Quang, Ngoc Thai, 

and Anvifish, respectively. On April 5, 

2007, after initiating the reviews, the 

Department issued antidumping duty 

questionnaires to the three companies 

participating in the new shipper 

reviews. The Department subsequently 

issued supplemental questionnaires to 

all companies under review between 

June 2007 and December 2007. 

Extension of Preliminary Results 

On September 12, 2007, the 

Department extended the preliminary 

results of these new shipper reviews to 

December 21, 2007. See Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam: Extension of Time Limits for 

the Preliminary Results of the 2006–

2007 Semi-Annual New Shipper 

Reviews, 72 FR 52048 (September 12, 

2007). On December 21, 2007, the 

Department extended the preliminary 

results of these new shipper reviews a 

second time to January 22, 2008. See 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: 

Extension of Time Limits for the 

Preliminary Results of the 2006–2007 

Semi-Annual New Shipper Reviews, 72 

FR 72668 (December 21, 2007). 

Surrogate Country and Surrogate 

Values 

On June 22, 2007, the Department 

sent interested parties a letter requesting 

comments on the surrogate country and 

information pertaining to valuing factors 

of production. 

On August 7, 2007, Ngoc Thai 

requested that the Department extend 

the deadline to submit information 

pertaining to valuing factors of 

production. On August 9, 2007, the 

Department extended the deadline to 

submit information pertaining to 

valuing factors of production by three 

weeks to August 31, 2007. 

On August 31, 2007, Catfish Farmers 

of America and individual U.S. catfish 

processors (collectively, ‘‘Petitioners’’) 

submitted comments on the surrogate 

country and information pertaining to 

valuing factors of production. No other 

party has submitted surrogate values or 

surrogate country comments on the 

record of this proceeding. 

Scope of the 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 

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 

1604.19.4000,2 1604.19.5000,3

0305.59.4000,4 0304.29.6033 5 (Frozen 

Fish Fillets of the species Pangasius 

including basa and tra) of the 

Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States (‘‘HTSUS’’).6 This Order 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

6120 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 

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. 

7The verification of Anvifish’s sales and FOPs 

took place from November 5 through November 13, 

2007. See Memorandum to the File through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, from Nicole 

Bankhead, Senior Case Analyst: Verification of the 

Sales and Factors Response of Anvifish Co., Ltd. 

(‘‘Anvifish’’) and its Affiliate D&T Food Company 

(‘‘D&T’’) in the Antidumping New Shipper Review 

of Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam (January 22, 

2008) (‘‘Anvifish’s Verification Report’’). 

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. 

Verification 

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

conducted verification of the sales and 

factors of production (‘‘FOP’’) for 

Anvifish.7

Affiliation 

Section 771(33) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended, (‘‘the Act’’), provides 

that: 

The following persons shall be 

considered to be ‘‘affiliated’’ or 

‘‘affiliated persons’’: 

(A) Members of a family, including 

brothers and sisters (whether by the 

whole or half blood), spouse, ancestors, 

and lineal descendants. 

(B) Any officer or director of an 

organization and such organization. 

(C) Partners. 

(D) Employer and employee. 

(E) Any person directly or indirectly 

owning, controlling, or holding with 

power to vote, 5 percent or more of the 

outstanding voting stock or shares of 

any organization and such organization. 

(F) Two or more persons directly or 

indirectly controlling, controlled by, or 

under common control with, any 

person. 

(G) Any person who controls any 

other person and such other person. 

Additionally, section 771(33) of the Act 

stipulates that: ‘‘For purposes of this 

paragraph, a person shall be considered 

to control another person if the person 

is legally or operationally in a position 

to exercise restraint or direction over the 

other person.’’

Vinh Quang 

Based on the record evidence in these 

new shipper reviews, we preliminarily 

find that Vinh Quang is affiliated with 

New Century Trading Company (‘‘New 

Century’’), pursuant to section 771(33) 

of the Act. For a detailed discussion of 

our analysis, please see Memorandum to 

James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, 

through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Julia Hancock, 

Senior Case Analyst, Subject: New 

Shipper Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Affiliation and Collapsing, 

(January 22, 2008) (‘‘Vinh Quang 

Affiliation Memo’’). In addition, based 

on the evidence presented in Vinh 

Quang’s questionnaire responses, we 

preliminarily find that Vinh Quang and 

New Century should be treated as a 

single entity for purposes of this new 

shipper review. See 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(1); see also Vinh Quang 

Affiliation Memo for a discussion of the 

proprietary aspects of this relationship. 

Ngoc Thai 

Based on the record evidence in these 

new shipper reviews, we preliminarily 

find that Ngoc Thai is affiliated with 

Thai Tan Seafood Company (‘‘Thai 

Tan’’), Ngoc Thu Company Ltd. (‘‘Ngoc 

Thu’’), and Kim Anh Company (‘‘Kim 

Anh’’), pursuant to section 771(33) of 

the Act. For a detailed discussion of our 

analysis, please see Memorandum to 

James C. Doyle, Director, Office 9, 

through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9, from Michael Holton, 

Senior Case Analyst, Subject: New 

Shipper Review of the Antidumping 

Duty Order on Certain Frozen Fish 

Fillets from the Socialist Republic of 

Vietnam: Affiliation and Collapsing of 

Ngoc Thai Company Ltd., (January 22, 

2008) (‘‘Ngoc Thai Affiliation Memo’’). 

In addition, based on the evidence 

presented in Ngoc Thai’s questionnaire 

responses, we preliminarily find that 

Ngoc Thai, Thai Tan, Ngoc Thu, and 

Kim Anh should be treated as a single 

entity for purposes of this new shipper 

review. See 19 CFR 351.401(f)(1); see 

also Ngoc Thai Affiliation Memo for a 

discussion of the proprietary aspects of 

this relationship. 

Anvifish 

Based on the record evidence in these 

new shipper reviews, we preliminarily 

find that Anvifish was not affiliated 

with its U.S. customer, D&T Food 

Company (‘‘D&T’’), within the meaning 

of section 771(33) of the Act for the 

portion of the POR that Anvifish sold 

subject merchandise to D&T that were 

then resold by D&T. In their 

submissions, Anvifish reported that one 

of D&T’s owners, Daniel Yet, was 

affiliated to Anvifish through his 

ownership in an investment company. 

Anvifish reported that this investment 

company was a shareholder of Anvifish 

during the POR. However, the 

Department finds that the record 

evidence demonstrates that Anvifish 

was not affiliated with D&T through this 

investment company’s ownership in 

Anvifish during the portion of the POR 

that Anvifish sold subject merchandise 

to D&T that was then resold by D&T. See 

Honey from the People’s Republic of 

China: Final Results and Final 

Rescission, in Part, of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 

38873 (July 6, 2005) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 8 (‘‘Honey 2nd AR’’) (the 

Department found that the respondents, 

Jinfu PRC and Jinfu USA, were not 

affiliated during the period of review 

because the purchase of stocks was not 

completed during the portion of the 

period of review that the sales 

occurred). In the Honey 2nd AR, the 

Department found that the respondents 

were not affiliated because the 

certificate of stock transfer was not 

dated within the portion of the period 

of review that the sales occurred and 

there was ‘‘no reliable evidence that the 

original owner received payment for his 

interest’’ prior to the issuance of the 

certificate of stock transfer. Id. In this 

case, the Department notes that the 

record does not contain a certificate of 

stock transfer or similar documentation 

that identifies that this investment 

company obtained shares in Anvifish 

during the portion of the POR that 

Anvifish sold subject merchandise to 

D&T and was then resold by D&T. 

Although it is the Department’s practice 

to make affiliation determinations based 

on the context of the execution of a 

stock transfer and the purchase in a 

company, absent this information, the 

Department has relied upon payment 

documentation as the date for when the 

investment company transferred funds 

and thus became a part owner of 

Anvifish. See Honey 2nd AR, 70 FR 

38873 at Comment 8; Anvifish’s 

Verification Report, at 6. 

During the POR, Anvifish made 

multiple sales to D&T. See 

Memorandum to the File through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, 

from Nicole Bankhead, Senior Case 

Analyst: Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping New Shipper Review of 

Frozen Fish Fillets from Vietnam: 

Preliminary Results Analysis Memo of 

Anvifish Co., Ltd. (‘‘Anvifish’’) (January 

22, 2008) (‘‘Anvifish’s Preliminary 

Analysis Memo’’), at 2. Out of these 

sales, all but one were made prior to the 

date the Department has determined as 

the appropriate date of affiliation, i.e., 

investment payment date. The one sale 

made after the Department finds 

Anvifish affiliated with D&T within the 

meaning of section 771(33) of the Act 

was subsequently not resold during the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6121 

8For more detailed discussion of this issue, 

please see Memorandum from Nicole Bankhead, 

Senior Case Analyst, Office 9, through Alex 

Villanueva, Program Manager, Office 9, to James C. 

Doyle, Director, Office 9: Bona Fide Nature of the 

Sale in the Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review 

of Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Anvifish Co., Ltd., (January 

22, 2008). 

POR. Therefore, for these preliminary 

results, the Department is treating all 

but one sale made between Anvifish and 

D&T on an export price (‘‘EP’’) basis. 

However, the Department finds that 

Anvifish is affiliated with D&T as of the 

date of the payment documentation, 

within the meaning of section 771(33) of 

the Act. See Anvifish’s Preliminary 

Analysis Memo. 

Preliminary Intent To Rescind 

Vinh Quang 

Section 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) of the 

Department’s regulations states that 

documentation establishing the date of 

first entry is: ‘‘The date on which 

subject merchandise of the exporter or 

producer making the request was first 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption, or, if the exporter or 

producer cannot establish the date of 

first entry, the date on which the 

exporter or producer first shipped the 

subject merchandise for export to the 

United States.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A). Additionally, 

section 351.214(c) of the Department’s 

regulations states: ‘‘An exporter or 

producer may request a new shipper 

review within one year of the date 

referred to in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) of 

this section.’’ See 19 CFR 351.214(c). 

As discussed above, we preliminarily 

determine that Vinh Quang and New 

Century are a single entity. See Vinh 

Quang Affiliation Memo. Additionally, 

we find that as a single entity Vinh 

Quang and New Century shipped 

subject merchandise over a year prior to 

the POR of this new shipper review. As 

a result, at the time of Vinh Quang’s 

request for review, the deadline for 

requesting a new shipper review of Vinh 

Quang and New Century’s first entry of 

subject merchandise had passed, 

pursuant to sections 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) 

and 351.214(c) of the Department’s 

regulations. Id. Accordingly, we find 

that Vinh Quang/New Century’s request 

for a new shipper review is untimely, 

pursuant to sections 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) 

and 351.214(c) of the Department’s 

regulations. See Vinh Quang Affiliation 

Memo. Therefore, the Department is 

preliminarily rescinding Vinh Quang’s 

new shipper review. 

Ngoc Thai 

Section 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) of the 

Department’s regulations states that 

documentation establishing the date of 

first entry is: ‘‘The date on which 

subject merchandise of the exporter or 

producer making the request was first 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption, or, if the exporter or 

producer cannot establish the date of 

first entry, the date on which the 

exporter or producer first shipped the 

subject merchandise for export to the 

United States.’’ See 19 CFR 

351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A). Additionally, 

section 351.214(c) of the Department’s 

regulations states: ‘‘An exporter or 

producer may request a new shipper 

review within one year of the date 

referred to in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) of 

this section.’’ See 19 CFR 351.214(c). 

As discussed above, we preliminarily 

determine that the Kim Anh Group, 

including Ngoc Thai, is a single entity. 

See Ngoc Thai Affiliation Memo. 

Additionally, we find that as a single 

entity the Kim Anh Group shipped 

subject merchandise over a year prior to 

the POR of this new shipper review. As 

a result, at the time of Ngoc Thai’s 

request for review, the deadline for 

requesting a new shipper review of the 

Kim Anh Group’s first entry of subject 

merchandise had passed, pursuant to 

sections 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) and 

351.214(c) of the Department’s 

regulations. Id. Accordingly, we find 

that the Kim Anh Group’s request for a 

new shipper review is untimely, 

pursuant to sections 351.214(b)(2)(iv)(A) 

and 351.214(c) of the Department’s 

regulations. See Ngoc Thai Affiliation 

Memo. Therefore, the Department is 

preliminarily rescinding Ngoc Thai’s 

new shipper review. 

New Shipper Review Bona Fide 

Analysis 

Consistent with the Department’s 

practice, we investigated the bona fide 

nature of the sale made by Anvifish for 

this new shipper review. We found that 

the new shipper sale by Anvifish was 

made on a bona fide basis. Based on our 

investigation into the bona fide nature 

of the sales, the questionnaire responses 

submitted by Anvifish, and our 

verification thereof, as well the 

companies’ eligibility for a separate rate 

(see Separate Rates Determination 

section below) and the Department’s 

preliminary determination that Anvifish 

was not affiliated with any exporter or 

producer that had previously shipped 

subject merchandise to the United 

States, we preliminarily determine that 

Anvifish has met the requirements to 

qualify as a new shipper during this 

POR. Therefore, for the purposes of 

these preliminary results of review, we 

are treating Anvifish’s sales of subject 

merchandise to the United States as an 

appropriate transaction for this new 

shipper review.8

Facts Available (‘‘FA’’) 

Section 776(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (‘‘Act’’), provides 

that, if an interested party: (A) 

Withholds information that has been 

requested by the Department; (B) fails to 

provide such information in a timely 

manner or in the form or manner 

requested subject to sections 782(c)(1) 

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

impedes a proceeding under the 

antidumping statute; or (D) provides 

such information but the information 

cannot be verified, the Department 

shall, subject to subsection 782(d) of the 

Act, use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

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

that if an interested party ‘‘promptly 

after receiving a request from {the 

Department} for information, notifies 

{the Department} that such party is 

unable to submit the information 

requested in the requested form and 

manner, together with a full explanation 

and suggested alternative form in which 

such party is able to submit the 

information,’’ the Department may 

modify the requirements to avoid 

imposing an unreasonable burden on 

that party. 

Section 782(d) of the Act provides 

that, if the Department determines that 

a response to a request for information 

does not comply with the request, the 

Department will inform the person 

submitting the response of the nature of 

the deficiency and shall, to the extent 

practicable, provide that person the 

opportunity to remedy or explain the 

deficiency. If that person submits 

further information that continues to be 

unsatisfactory, or this information is not 

submitted within the applicable time 

limits, the Department may, subject to 

section 782(e), disregard all or part of 

the original and subsequent responses, 

as appropriate. 

Section 782(e) of the Act states that 

the Department shall not decline to 

consider information deemed 

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

The information is submitted by the 

established deadline; (2) the information 

can be verified; (3) the information is 

not so incomplete that it cannot serve as 

a reliable basis for reaching the 

applicable determination; (4) the 

interested party has demonstrated that it 

acted to the best of its ability; and (5) 

the information can be used without 

undue difficulties. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

6122 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 

Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act 

states that if the Department ‘‘finds that 

an interested party has failed to 

cooperate by not acting to the best of its 

ability to comply with a request for 

information from the administering 

authority or the Commission, the 

administering authority or the 

Commission * * *, in reaching the 

applicable determination under this 

title, may use an inference that is 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available.’’ See also, 

Statement of Administrative Action 

(‘‘SAA’’) accompanying the Uruguay 

Round Agreements Act (‘‘URAA’’), H.R. 

Rep. No. 103–316, Vol. 1 at 870 (1994). 

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 SAA; MannesmannrohrenWerke AG v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 

2d 1302 (CIT 1999). The Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

(‘‘CAFC’’), in Nippon Steel Corporation 

v. United States, 337 F.3d 1373, 1382 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (‘‘Nippon Steel’’), 

provided an explanation of the ‘‘failure 

to act to the best of its ability’’ standard, 

stating that the ordinary meaning of 

‘‘best’’ means ‘‘one’s maximum effort,’’

and that the statutory mandate that a 

respondent act to the ‘‘best of its ability’’

requires the respondent to do the 

maximum it is able to do. Id. The CAFC 

acknowledged, however, that 

‘‘deliberate concealment or inaccurate 

reporting’’ would certainly be sufficient 

to find that a respondent did not act to 

the best of its ability, although it 

indicated that inadequate responses to 

agency inquiries ‘‘would suffice’’ as 

well. Id. Compliance with the ‘‘best of 

the ability’’ standard is determined by 

assessing whether a respondent has put 

forth its maximum effort to provide the 

Department with full and complete 

answers to all inquiries in an 

investigation. Id. The CAFC further 

noted that while the standard does not 

require perfection and recognizes that 

mistakes sometimes occur, it does not 

condone inattentiveness, carelessness, 

or inadequate record keeping. Id. 

For these preliminary results, in 

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

the Act, we have determined that the 

use of facts available is appropriate for 

Anvifish’s reported indirect labor usage 

and its unreported containerization. 

A. Labor 

Under section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, 

the Department may use facts otherwise 

available in reaching the applicable 

determination if the respondent 

provides information but the 

information cannot be verified. In the 

original Section D questionnaire 

response, Anvifish stated that its 

reported indirect labor included 

supervisors, technical workers, and 

contract labor but that it did not keep 

daily records of its contract labor. See 

Anvifish’s Section D Questionnaire 

Response, (May 4, 2007) at D–12. The 

Department issued two supplemental 

questionnaires requesting that Anvfish 

provide supporting documentation for 

its reported technical and contract labor, 

which were based on estimated labor 

hours. In its supplemental Section D 

questionnaire response, Anvifish stated 

that it did not see the need to record the 

working hours of the contract labor as 

they were not paid by the hour. See 

Anvifish’s Supplemental Section D 

Questionnaire Response, (August 13, 

2007) at 23 and Exhibit 27. In its second 

supplemental Section D questionnaire 

response, Anvifish stated that it 

reported its technical workers as 

indirect labor and provided a contract 

for the technical workers. See Anvifish’s 

Second Supplemental Section D 

Questionnaire Response, (October 16, 

2007) at 32 and Exhibit 28. However, at 

verification, Anvifish stated that they 

were unable to recreate the estimated 

hours reported for technical and 

contract labor in Anvifish’s 

questionnaire responses because they 

did not track the actual hours. See 

Anvifish’s Verification Report at 38–39 

and Exhibit AV VE 15. Accordingly, the 

Department was unable to verify 

Anvifish’s reported indirect labor hours 

for technical and contract labor. Id. 

Because Anvifish did not provide 

verifiable documentation for Anvifish’s 

technical and contract labor, we applied 

facts available to Anvifish’s 

consumption of indirect labor pursuant 

to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. 

Pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act, 

the Department may use an inference 

that is adverse to the interests of that 

party in selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available when the party fails 

to cooperate by not acting to best of its 

ability. See Certain Welded Carbon Steel 

Pipes and Tubes from Thailand: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 62 FR 53808 

(October 16, 1997); Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Final Negative Critical 

Circumstances: Carbon and Certain 

Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, 67 FR 

55792, 55794–96 (August 30, 2002). 

Additionally, the Department notes that 

the standard for using adverse facts 

available (‘‘AFA’’) does not condone 

‘‘inattentiveness, carelessness, or 

inadequate record keeping.’’ See Nippon 

Steel Corp. v. United States, 337 F. 3d 

1373, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Accordingly, 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 SAA, at 870. 

Furthermore, ‘‘{a}ffirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a Respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Countervailing Duties: 

Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 (May 19, 

1997). 

In this instance, Anvifish failed to act 

to the best of its ability to provide the 

Department with indirect labor hours 

that could be verified. Anvifish reported 

indirect labor hours for technical and 

contract labor. As a respondent, 

Anvifish had the responsibility to 

accurately report its indirect labor usage 

rates. However, it was only at 

verification that it became clear that the 

numbers provided by Anvifish had no 

basis in documentary evidence of actual 

consumption. Despite numerous 

opportunities, Anvifish did not act to 

the best of its ability to provide 

accurate, verifiable information. 

Contrary to Anvifish’s pre-verification 

representations, at verification the 

Department discovered that the indirect 

labor usage rates reported by Anvifish 

were not representative of the actual use 

of that factor of production. Consistent 

with the Department’s practice in other 

cases where a respondent fails to 

cooperate to the best of its ability, and 

in keeping with section 776(b) of the 

Act, the Department finds that the use 

of partial AFA is warranted for 

Anvifish’s unverifiable labor usage 

rates. Therefore, for the preliminary 

results, the Department will apply as 

partial AFA, the single highest month of 

attendance days for the technical 

workers to calculate the AFA labor 

usage rate for Anvifish’s total indirect 

labor for technical workers and contract 

labor. See Notice of Final Determination 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value: 

Tetrahydrofurfuryl Alcohol from the 

People’s Republic of China, 69 FR 34130 

(June 18, 2004) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1; Notice of Final 

Antidumping Duty Determination of 

Sales at Less than Fair Value and 

Affirmative Critical Circumstances: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

37116 (June 23, 2003) (‘‘Vietnam Fish 

Fillets’’) and accompanying Issues and 

Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. 

B. Containerization 

Under section 776(a)(A) and (D) of the 

Act, the Department may use facts 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6123 

otherwise available in reaching the 

applicable determination if the 

respondent withheld information that 

had been requested and provides 

information that cannot be verified. In 

its three Section C questionnaire 

responses, Anvifish did not report that 

it incurred containerization at the port 

as a sales expense for its sales of subject 

merchandise. However, at verification, 

the Department discovered that 

Anvifish did incur containerization at 

the port as a sales expense for certain of 

its sales of subject merchandise. See 

Anvifish’s Verification Report, at 27 and 

GRO VE 9C. Because Anvifish withheld 

this data and failed to report 

containerization as a sales expense to 

the Department, despite the 

Department’s giving Anvifish two 

additional opportunities to correct its 

U.S. sales data, we have applied facts 

available for Anvifish’s containerization 

pursuant to section 776(a)(2)(A) and (D) 

of the Act. As partial facts available, the 

Department is deducting 

containerization using a surrogate value 

for those sales where Anvifish incurred 

this expense. 

Non-Market Economy Country Status 

In every Vietnamese antidumping 

duty (‘‘AD’’) case conducted by the 

Department, 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 Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp 

From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 

69 FR 71005 (December 8, 2004); 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final 

Results of the First Administrative 

Review, 71 FR 14170 (March 21, 2006) 

(‘‘FFF1 Final Results’’); Certain Frozen 

Fish Fillets from the Socialist Republic 

of Vietnam: Final Results of the Second 

Administrative, 72 FR 13242 (March 21, 

2007) (‘‘FFF2 Final Results’’). No party 

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. 

Separate Rates Determination 

A designation of a country 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 

(‘‘Sparklers’’), 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) (‘‘Silicon Carbide’’). 

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. 

Throughout the course of this 

proceeding, Anvifish has placed 

sufficient evidence on the record that 

demonstrate the absence of de jure 

control. Specifically, Anvifish has 

placed on the record a number of 

documents to demonstrate absence of de 

jure control including business licenses, 

financial statements, and narrative 

information regarding government laws 

and regulations on corporate ownership, 

and the companies’ operations and 

selection of management. The evidence 

provided by Anvifish supports a finding 

of a de jure absence of governmental 

control over its export activities. 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 

respondent. 

B. Absence of De Facto Control 

The absence of de facto governmental 

control over exports is based on whether 

a company: (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 and 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). 

The Department conducted a 

separate-rates analysis for Anvifish. In 

its questionnaire responses, Anvifish 

submitted evidence indicating an 

absence of de facto governmental 

control over its export activities. 

Specifically, this evidence indicates 

that: (1) Anvifish sets its own export 

prices independent of the government 

and without the approval of a 

government authority; (2) Anvifish 

retains the proceeds from its sales and 

makes independent decisions regarding 

the disposition of profits or financing of 

losses; (3) Anvifish 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 Anvifish’s use 

of export revenues. The questionnaire 

responses of Anvifish do not suggest 

that pricing is coordinated among 

exporters. During our analysis of the 

information on the record, we found no 

information indicating the existence of 

government control. Therefore, the 

Department preliminarily finds that 

Anvifish has established prima facie 

that they qualify for separate rates under 

the criteria established by Silicon 

Carbide and Sparklers. 

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 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

6124 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 

9See Memorandum from Ron Lorentzen, Director, 

Office of Policy, to Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, China/NME Group, Office 9: 

Antidumping Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets (‘‘Frozen Fish’’) from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Request for a List of 

Surrogate Countries (May 23, 2007). 

below and in the Memorandum to the 

File through Alex Villanueva, Program 

Manager, Office 9 from Julia Hancock, 

Senior Analyst, Office 9: Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review of Certain 

Frozen Fish Fillets from the Socialist 

Republic of Vietnam: Surrogate Values 

for the Preliminary Results, (January 22, 

2008) (‘‘Factor Valuation Memo’’). 

As discussed in the ‘‘Separate Rates’’

section, above, the Department 

considers Vietnam to be an NME 

country. The Department has treated 

Vietnam as an NME country in all 

previous antidumping proceedings. 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. None of the 

parties to this proceeding contested 

such treatment. Accordingly, we treated 

Vietnam as an NME country for 

purposes of these reviews and 

calculated NV, pursuant to section 

773(c) of the Act, by valuing the FOPs 

in a surrogate country. 

The Department determined that 

Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, 

and Sri Lanka are countries comparable 

to Vietnam in terms of economic 

development.9 Once it has identified 

economically comparable countries, the 

Department’s practice is to select an 

appropriate surrogate country from the 

list based on the availability and 

reliability of data from the countries. 

See Department Policy Bulletin No. 

04.1: Non-Market Economy Surrogate 

Country Selection Process (March 1, 

2004). In this case, we have found that 

Bangladesh is a significant producer of 

comparable merchandise. We find 

Bangladesh to be a reliable source for 

surrogate values 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 publicly available and reliable 

data. See Memorandum to the File, 

through James C. Doyle, Office Director, 

Office 9, Import Administration, and 

Alex Villanueva, Program Manager, 

Office 9, from Julia Hancock, Senior 

Analyst, Re: New Shipper Reviews of 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets from the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Selection 

of a Surrogate Country, (January 22, 

2008). Thus, we have selected 

Bangladesh as the primary surrogate 

country for this administrative review. 

However, in certain instances where 

Bangladeshi data was not available, we 

used data from Indian sources. 

Fair Value Comparisons 

To determine whether sales of the 

subject merchandise made by Anvifish 

to the United States were at prices 

below NV, we compared Anvifish’s 

export price (‘‘EP’’) to NV, as described 

below. 

Export Price 

For Anvifish’s EP sales, we used the 

EP methodology, pursuant to section 

772(a) of the Act, because the first sale 

to an unaffiliated purchaser was made 

prior to importation and CEP was not 

otherwise warranted by the facts on the 

record. We calculated EP based on the 

cost and freight foreign port price to the 

first unaffiliated purchaser in the United 

States. For these EP sales, in accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act, we also 

deducted billing adjustments, foreign 

inland freight, foreign brokerage and 

handling, foreign cold storage, and 

international ocean freight from the 

starting price (or gross unit price), 

where appropriate. 

Where movement expenses were 

provided by NME-service providers or 

paid for in NME currency, we valued 

these services using either Bangladeshi 

or Indian surrogate values. See Factor 

Valuation Memo. Where applicable, we 

used the actual reported expense for 

those movement expenses provided by 

ME suppliers and paid for in ME 

currency. 

Normal Value 

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

that, in the case of an NME, the 

Department shall determine NV using 

an FOP methodology if the merchandise 

is exported from an NME and the 

information does not permit the 

calculation of NV using home-market 

prices, third-country prices, or 

constructed value under section 773(a) 

of the Act. Because information on the 

record does not permit the calculation 

of NV using home-market prices, thirdcountry prices, or constructed value and 

no party has argued otherwise, we 

calculated NV based on FOPs reported 

by Anvifish, pursuant to sections 

773(c)(3) and (4) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.408(c). As the basis for NV, 

Anvifish provided FOPs used in each of 

the stages for processing frozen fish 

fillets. 

To calculate NV, we valued Anvifish’s 

reported per-unit factor quantities using 

publicly available Bangladeshi, Indian, 

and Indonesian surrogate values. In 

selecting surrogate values, we 

considered the quality, specificity, and 

contemporaneity of the available values. 

As appropriate, we adjusted the value of 

material inputs to account for delivery 

costs. Specifically, we added surrogate 

freight costs to surrogate values using 

the reported distances from the Vietnam 

port to the Vietnam factory, or from the 

domestic supplier to the factory, where 

appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision of the 

CAFC in Sigma Corp. v. United States, 

117 F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. Cir. 

1997). 

For those values not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

adjusted for inflation using data 

published in the International Monetary 

Fund’s International Financial 

Statistics. Import data from South 

Korea, Thailand and Indonesia were 

excluded from the surrogate country 

import data due to generally available 

export subsidies. See China Nat’l Mach. 

Import & Export Corp. v. United States, 

CIT 01–1114, 293 F. Supp. 2d 1334 (CIT 

2003), aff’d 104 Fed. Appx. 183 (Fed. 

Cir. 2004), and 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, 

and accompanying Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 4 (March 15, 

2005). Additionally, we excluded prices 

from NME countries and imports that 

were labeled as originating from an 

‘‘unspecified’’ Asian country. The 

Department excluded these imports 

because it could not ascertain whether 

they were from either an NME country 

or a country with general export 

subsidies. We converted the surrogate 

values to U.S. dollars as appropriate, 

using the official exchange rate recorded 

on the dates of sale of subject 

merchandise in this case, obtained from 

Import Administration’s Web site at 

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

index.html. For further detail, see Factor 

Valuation Memo. 

Preliminary Results of the Reviews 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily find that the following 

margins exist for the period August 1, 

2006, through January 1, 2007: 

CERTAIN FROZEN FISH FILLETS FROM

VIETNAM

Manufacturer/exporter 

Weightedaverage 

margin 

(percent) 

Anvifish ..................................... 34.33 

The Department will disclose to 

parties of this proceeding the 

calculations performed in reaching the 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2008 / Notices 6125 

10We divided the total dumping margins 

(calculated as the difference between NV and EP or 

CEP) for each importer by the total quantity of 

subject merchandise sold to that importer during 

the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. 

We will direct CBP to assess importer-specific 

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. 

preliminary results within five days of 

the date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

In accordance with 19 CFR 

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

an antidumping duty new shipper 

review, interested parties may submit 

publicly available information to value 

FOPs within 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results. 

Interested parties must provide the 

Department with supporting 

documentation for the publicly 

available information to value each 

FOP. Additionally, in accordance with 

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

results of this new shipper 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. 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1) does not envision the 

submission of additional, previously 

absent-from-the-record alternative 

surrogate value information. Therefore, 

parties should take note that surrogate 

value data that are introduced as 

rebuttal to a surrogate value submission 

generally will not fall within the 

meaning and applicability of 19 CFR 

351.301(c)(1). See Glycine from the 

People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Final 

Rescission, in Part, 72 FR 58809 

(October 17, 2007) and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 2. 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs and/or written comments no later 

than 30 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of this new shipper 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 5 

days after the deadline for submitting 

the case briefs. See 19 CFR 351.309(d). 

The Department requests that interested 

parties provide an executive summary 

of each argument contained within the 

case briefs and rebuttal briefs. 

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 intends to issue the 

final results of these new shipper 

reviews, which will include the results 

of its analysis raised in any such 

comments, within 90 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

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

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon completion of the final results, 

pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b), the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries on a per-unit basis.10

calculate an assessment rate on all 

appropriate entries. The Department 

intends to issue assessment instructions 

to CBP 15 days after the date of 

publication of the final results of 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of review, 

the Department shall determine, and 

CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on 

all appropriate entries. Pursuant to 19 

CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific (or customer) per-unit 

duty assessment rates. We will instruct 

CBP to assess antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries covered by this 

review if any importer-specific 

assessment rate calculated in the final 

results of this is above de minimis. 

Cash-Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

new shipper review for all shipments of 

subject merchandise from Anvifish 

entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, 

for consumption on or after the 

publication date, as provided for by 

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

subject merchandise produced and 

exported by Anvifish, the cash deposit 

rate will be that established in the final 

results of this review (except, if the rate 

is zero or de minimis, 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. If the cash deposit rate 

calculated in the final results is zero or 

de minimis, no cash deposit will be 

required for those specific producerexporter combinations. These cash 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

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 POR. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

determination in accordance with 

sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 

777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 

351.214(h)(i). 

Dated: January 22, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–1899 Filed 1–31–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–533–840] 

Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp 

from India; Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping DutyAdministrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is rescinding the 

administrative reviews of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen warmwater shrimp from India for 

the period February 1, 2006, through 

January 31, 2007, for 114 companies, 

based on: 1) timely withdrawals of the 

review requests; 2) confirmed 

statements of no shipments during the 

period of review (POR); 3) our inability 

to locate certain companies; and/or 4) 

duplicated names in our notice of 

initiation. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES