52012 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

and may reasonably be applied to the 

PRC–wide entity, which includes 

Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, 

Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan 

Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong 

Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and 

Yangcheng Chemical. Because these are 

the preliminary results of review, the 

Department will consider all margins on 

the record at the time of the final results 

of review for the purpose of determining 

the most appropriate final margin for 

Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui Worldbest, 

Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, Hunan 

Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, Pudong 

Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, and 

Yangcheng Chemical. See Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Solid Fertilizer 

Grade Ammonium Nitrate From the 

Russian Federation, 65 FR 1139 

(January 7, 2000), unchanged in Notice 

of Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value; Solid Fertilizer Grade 

Ammonium Nitrate from the Russian 

Federation, 65 FR 42669 (July 11, 2000). 

Preliminary Results of Review 

We preliminarily determine that the 

following antidumping duty margins 

exist for the period December 1, 2006, 

through November 30, 2007: 

Exporter/Manufacturer Margin 

(percent) 

PRC–Wide Rate (including Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui 

Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, 

Goldlink, Hunan Sunlogistics, 

Hygeia–Chem, Pudong Prime, 

Shanghai Rainbow, Sinocol, 

and Yangcheng Chemical) ..... 241.32 

Schedule for Final Results of Review 

Interested parties may submit case 

briefs no later than 30 days after the 

date of publication of these preliminary 

results of review. See 19 CFR 

351.309(c)(1)(ii). Rebuttal briefs, limited 

to issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be filed no later than five days after the 

time limit for filing the case briefs. See 

19 CFR 351.309(d). Parties who submit 

case 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. 

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 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. Issues raised in the 

hearing will be limited to those raised 

in the case and rebuttal briefs. Any 

hearing, if requested, will be held 37 

days after the date of publication, or the 

first business day thereafter, unless the 

Department alters the date pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.310(d)(1). 

The Department intends to issue the 

final results of this administrative 

review, which will include the results of 

its analysis of issues raised in any such 

comments, within 120 days of 

publication of these preliminary results, 

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

Act. 

Assessment Rates 

Upon issuance of the final results, the 

Department will determine, and CBP 

shall assess, antidumping duties on all 

appropriate entries. 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. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

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) the cash deposit rate for PRC 

exporters who received a separate rate 

in a prior segment of the proceeding 

(i.e., Nantong Chemical, Tianjin 

Hanchem, and Trust Chem) will 

continue to be the rate assigned in that 

segment of the proceeding; (2) for all 

other PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise which have not been 

found to be entitled to a separate rate 

(including Aesthetic Colortech, Anhui 

Worldbest, Cidic, Ganguink, Goldlink, 

Hunan Sunlogistics, Hygeia–Chem, 

Pudong Prime, Shanghai Rainbow, 

Sinocol, and Yangcheng Chemical), the 

cash–deposit rate will be the PRC–wide 

rate of 241.32 percent; (3) for all non–

PRC exporters of subject merchandise, 

the cash–deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC supplier of that 

exporter. 

These deposit requirements shall 

remain in effect until publication of the 

final results of the next administrative 

review. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This notice is published in 

accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 

777(i)(1) of the Act. 

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20750 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

A–533–838 

Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 from 

India: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to a request from 

an interested party, the Department of 

Commerce (the Department) is 

conducting an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

carbazole violet pigment 23 from India. 

The review covers two manufacturers/ 

exporters, Alpanil Industries and 

Pidilite Industries Limited. The period 

of review is December 1, 2006, through 

November 30, 2007. We have 

preliminarily determined that Alpanil 

Industries and Pidilite Industries 

Limited made sales below normal value. 

We invite interested parties to comment 

on these preliminary results. Parties 

who submit comments in this review 

are requested to submit with each 

argument a statement of each issue and 

a brief summary of the argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yang Jin Chun or Hermes Pinilla, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 5, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230; 

telephone: (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482–

3477, respectively. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 52013 

1The bracketed section of the product 

description, [3,2-b:3 ,2 -m], is not businessproprietary information. In this case, the brackets 

are simply part of the chemical nomenclature. See 

Antidumping Duty Order. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On December 29, 2004, we published 

in the Federal Register the antidumping 

duty order on carbazole violet pigment 

23 (CVP 23) from India. See Notice of 

Amended Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value and 

Antidumping Duty Order: Carbazole 

Violet Pigment 23 From India, 69 FR 

77988 (December 29, 2004) 

(Antidumping Duty Order). On 

December 3, 2007, we published in the 

Federal Register a notice of opportunity 

to request an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on CVP 23 

from India. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

To Request Administrative Review, 72 

FR 67889 (December 3, 2007). On 

December 31, 2007, pursuant to section 

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

amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 

351.213(b), Nation Ford Chemical 

Company and Sun Chemical 

Corporation, the petitioners in this 

proceeding, requested an administrative 

review of the antidumping duty order 

on CVP 23 from India produced and/or 

exported by Alpanil Industries (Alpanil) 

and Pidilite Industries Limited 

(Pidilite). On January 28, 2008, in 

accordance with section 751(a) of the 

Act and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we 

published a notice of initiation of 

administrative review of this order. See 

Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews and Request for Revocation in 

Part, 73 FR 4829 (January 28, 2008). The 

administrative review covers the period 

December 1, 2006, through November 

30, 2007. We are conducting this 

administrative review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Act. 

Scope of the Order 

The merchandise subject to the order 

is CVP 23 identified as Color Index No. 

51319 and Chemical Abstract No. 6358–

30–1, with the chemical name of 

diindolo [3,2–b:3 ,2 -m]1

triphenodioxazine, 8,18–dichloro–5, 

15–diethyl–5, 15–dihydro-, and 

molecular formula of C34H22Cl2N4O2. 

The subject merchandise includes the 

crude pigment in any form (e.g., dry 

powder, paste, wet cake) and finished 

pigment in the form of presscake and 

dry color. Pigment dispersions in any 

form (e.g., pigment dispersed in 

oleoresins, flammable solvents, water) 

are not included within the scope of the 

order. The merchandise subject to the 

order is classifiable under subheading 

3204.17.90.40 of the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). 

Although the HTSUS subheading is 

provided for convenience and customs 

purposes, the written description of the 

scope of the order is dispositive. 

Use of Adverse Facts Available 

For the reasons discussed below, we 

determine that the use of adverse facts 

available is appropriate for the 

preliminary results with respect to 

Alpanil and Pidilite. 

A. Use of Facts Available 

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

that, if an interested party withholds 

information requested by the 

administering authority, fails to provide 

such information by the deadlines for 

submission of the information and in 

the form or manner requested, 

significantly impedes a proceeding 

under this title, or provides such 

information but the information cannot 

be verified as provided in section 782(i) 

of the Act, the administering authority 

shall use facts otherwise available in 

reaching the applicable determination. 

On February 21, 2008, the Department 

transmitted its questionnaire to Alpanil 

and Pidilite via Federal Express. We 

confirmed that Alpanil and Pidilite 

signed for and received the 

questionnaire on February 25, 2008. The 

due date for the questionnaire response 

was March 31, 2008, for both 

respondents. On March 27, 2008, we 

received a request from Pidilite for an 

extension of the due date for the 

questionnaire response. We granted 

Pidilite’s extension request in part and 

extended the due date for the 

questionnaire response to April 21, 

2008. Although Pidilite received the 

letter granting the extension on April 4, 

2008, it did not file its response by the 

due date. 

On April 4, 2008, we received a 

request from Alpanil for an extension of 

the due date for the questionnaire 

response. Because Alpanil filed an 

extension request in an untimely 

manner, we did not grant Alpanil’s 

request for the extension of the due date 

for the questionnaire response. 

Because Alpanil and Pidilite did not 

provide their responses to the 

Department’s questionnaire, Alpanil 

and Pidilite failed to provide any 

information to the Department within 

the meaning of section 776(a)(2) of the 

Act. As a result, the Department is 

unable to calculate the margins for 

Alpanil and Pidilite and, therefore, must 

rely entirely on facts available. 

B. Application of Adverse Inferences for 

Facts Available 

Section 776(b) of the Act provides 

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, 

the Department may use an inference 

adverse to the interests of that party in 

selecting the facts otherwise available. 

In addition, the Statement of 

Administrative Action accompanying 

the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, 

H.R. Rep. 103–316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. 

(1994) (SAA), establishes that the 

Department may employ an adverse 

inference ‘‘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. It 

also instructs the Department to 

consider, in employing adverse 

inferences, ‘‘the extent to which a party 

may benefit from its own lack of 

cooperation.’’ Id. 

Furthermore, ‘‘affirmative evidence of 

bad faith on the part of a respondent is 

not required before the Department may 

make an adverse inference.’’ See 

Antidumping Duties; Countervailing 

Duties, Final Rule, 62 FR 27296, 27340 

(May 19, 1997). We find that, by failing 

completely to respond to our 

questionnaire, i.e., withholding 

requested information, Alpanil and 

Pidilite failed to cooperate to the best of 

their abilities. Therefore, we find it 

appropriate to use an inference that is 

adverse to these companies’ interests in 

selecting from among the facts 

otherwise available. By doing so, we 

ensure that these companies will not 

obtain a more favorable rate by failing 

to cooperate than had they cooperated 

fully. 

C. Selection of Information Used as 

Facts Available 

Where the Department applies an 

adverse facts–available rate because a 

respondent failed to cooperate by not 

acting to the best of its ability to comply 

with a request for information, section 

776(b) of the Act authorizes the 

Department to rely on information 

derived from the petition, a final 

determination, a previous 

administrative review, or other 

information placed on the record. See 

also 19 CFR 351.308(c) and the SAA at 

870. The petition rate is 147.59 percent. 

See the November 21, 2003, petition for 

initiation of an antidumping duty 

investigation on CVP 23 from India, et 

al., at 21, unchanged in the December 3, 

2003, amendment to the petition. 

Because we were not able to corroborate 

the petition rate based on the results of 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

52014 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 

examination in previous segments of the 

proceeding, we have selected 66.59 

percent as the adverse facts–available 

dumping margin. This is the highest 

calculated margin for a company in this 

proceeding; we calculated this margin 

for Pidilite in the investigation. See 

Antidumping Duty Order, 69 FR at 

77989. This rate is sufficiently high as 

to reasonably ensure that Alpanil and 

Pidilite do not obtain a more favorable 

result by failing to cooperate. 

Section 776(c) of the Act provides 

that, when the Department relies on 

secondary information as facts available, 

it must corroborate, to the extent 

practicable, that information from 

independent sources that are reasonably 

at its disposal. The SAA clarifies that 

‘‘corroborate’’ means that the 

Department will satisfy itself that the 

secondary information to be used has 

probative value. See SAA at 870. The 

SAA also states that independent 

sources used to corroborate may 

include, for example, published price 

lists, official import statistics, and 

customs data as well as information 

obtained from interested parties during 

the particular proceeding. Id. 

To corroborate secondary information, 

to the extent practicable, the 

Department normally examines the 

reliability and relevance of the 

information to be used. Unlike other 

types of information such as input costs 

or selling expenses, however, there are 

no independent sources for calculated 

dumping margins. The only source for 

margins is administrative 

determinations. Thus, with respect to an 

administrative review, if the Department 

chooses as facts available a calculated 

dumping margin from a prior segment of 

the proceeding, it is not necessary to 

question the reliability of the margin for 

that time period. See Antifriction 

Bearings and Parts Thereof from France, 

et al.: Preliminary Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Reviews, Partial Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews, Notice of Intent 

to Rescind Administrative Reviews, and 

Notice of Intent to Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 5949, 5953 (February 9, 2004), 

unchanged in Antifriction Bearings and 

Parts Thereof from France, et al.: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Reviews, Rescission of 

Administrative Reviews in Part, and 

Determination To Revoke Order in Part, 

69 FR 55574, 55576–77 (September 15, 

2004). 

With respect to the relevance aspect 

of corroboration, however, 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 adverse facts available, 

the Department will disregard the 

margin and determine an appropriate 

margin. For example, in Fresh Cut 

Flowers from Mexico; Final Results of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 61 FR 6812, 6814 (Feb. 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 or judicially invalidated. 

See D & L Supply Co. v. United States, 

113 F.3d 1220, 1221 (CAFC 1997). 

None of these unusual circumstances 

is present here. Moreover, there is no 

information on the record of this review 

that demonstrates that 66.59 percent is 

not an appropriate adverse facts–

available rate for Alpanil and Pidilite. 

Therefore, we consider the dumping 

margin of 66.59 percent, which is a 

margin percentage we determined in the 

less–than-fair–value investigation, 

relevant for use as adverse facts 

available for this review. Because we are 

making an adverse inference with regard 

to Alpanil and Pidilite, we find that the 

rate of 66.59 percent is a reasonable 

indication of the margins that Alpanil 

and Pidilite would have received on 

their U.S. transactions had they 

responded to our request for 

information. We find that use of the rate 

of 66.59 percent as adverse facts 

available is sufficiently high to ensure 

that Alpanil and Pidilite do not benefit 

from failing to cooperate in our review 

by refusing to respond to our 

questionnaire. See Certain Cut–toLength Carbon–Quality Steel Plate 

Products from the Republic of Korea: 

Final Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Rescission 

of Administrative Review in Part, 73 FR 

15132, 15133 (March 21, 2008). 

Adjustment for Export Subsidies 

For Pidilite in the original 

investigation, we subtracted the portion 

of the countervailing duty rate 

attributable to export subsidies (17.02 

percent) from the final dumping margin 

of 66.59 percent in order to calculate the 

cash–deposit rate of 49.57 percent. See 

Antidumping Duty Order. Since the 

publication of the Antidumping Duty 

Order we have not conducted an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty order on CVP 23 

from India. See Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India: Notice of 

Rescission of Countervailing Duty 

Administrative Review, 72 FR 15113 

(March 30, 2007), and Carbazole Violet 

Pigment 23 from India: Rescission of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 44704 (July 31, 2008). 

Therefore, the portion of the 

countervailing duty rate attributable to 

export subsidies currently in effect for 

Pidilite is 17.02 percent. Further, 

imports from both Alpanil and Pidilite 

during the review period were subject to 

countervailing duties to offset export 

subsidies of 17.02 percent or more. 

Because the adverse facts–available rate 

we selected for this review is the margin 

we calculated for Pidilite in the 

investigation, we have adjusted the 

dumping margin to ensure that, in 

accordance with section 772(c)(1)(C) of 

the Act, we do not collect duties 

attributable to export subsidies twice. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

weighted–average dumping margins for 

CVP 23 from India for the period 

December 1, 2006, through November 

30, 2007, are as follows: 

Company Margin (percent) Rate Adjusted for Export Subsidies 

Alpanil .......................................................................................... 66.59 49.57 

Pidilite .......................................................................................... 66.59 49.57 

Comments 

We will disclose the draft liquidation 

instructions to parties to this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice. Case briefs 

from interested parties may be 

submitted not later than 30 days after 

the date of publication of this notice of 

preliminary results of review. Rebuttal 

briefs from interested parties, limited to 

the issues raised in the case briefs, may 

be submitted not later than five days 

after the time limit for filing the case 

briefs or comments. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 174 / Monday, September 8, 2008 / Notices 52015 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. Interested 

parties who wish to request a hearing, 

or to participate in a hearing if a hearing 

is requested, must submit a written 

request to the Assistant Secretary for 

Import Administration within 30 days 

of the date of publication of this notice. 

Requests should contain the following: 

(1) the party’s name, address, and 

telephone number; (2) the number of 

participants; and (3) a list of issues to be 

discussed. 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs. Any hearing, if 

requested, will be held two days after 

the scheduled date for submission of 

rebuttal briefs. Parties who submit case 

briefs or rebuttal briefs in this review 

are requested to submit with each 

argument a statement of the issue, a 

summary of the arguments not 

exceeding five pages, and a table of 

statutes, regulations, and cases cited. 

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, not later than 

120 days after the date of publication of 

this notice. 

Assessment Rates 

The Department will determine, and 

U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties 

on all appropriate entries. We intend to 

issue appropriate assessment 

instructions directly to CBP 15 days 

after publication of the final results of 

review. We will instruct CBP to assess 

the antidumping liability for all 

shipments of CVP 23 from India 

produced and/or exported by Alpanil or 

Pidilite and entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption during the 

period of review. We will instruct CBP 

to assess antidumping duties at the 

adjusted rate of 49.57 percent if CBP has 

collected the appropriate countervailing 

duties on the same entry. We will 

instruct CBP to assess antidumping 

duties at the unadjusted rate of 66.59 

percent if the appropriate countervailing 

duties are not collected by CBP. 

Cash–Deposit Requirements 

The following deposit requirements 

will be effective upon publication of the 

notice of final results of administrative 

review for all shipments of CVP 23 from 

India entered, or withdrawn from 

warehouse, for consumption on or after 

the date of publication, as provided by 

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

cash–deposit rates for Alpanil and 

Pidilite will be the rates established in 

the final results of this review; (2) if the 

exporter is not a firm covered in this 

review, a previous review, or the less–

than-fair–value investigation but the 

manufacturer is, the cash–deposit rate 

will be the rate established for the most 

recent period for the manufacturer of 

the merchandise; (3) if neither the 

exporter nor the manufacturer has its 

own rate, the cash–deposit rate will be 

27.48 percent, the all–others rate 

published in Antidumping Duty Order, 

69 FR at 77989. These deposit 

requirements, when imposed, shall 

remain in effect until further notice. 

Notification to Importer 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding 

the reimbursement of antidumping 

duties prior to liquidation of the 

relevant entries during this review 

period. Failure to comply with this 

requirement could result in the 

Department’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of doubled antidumping duties. 

These preliminary results of 

administrative review are issued and 

published in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20752 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–827) 

Certain Cased Pencils from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of 

Correction of Extension of Time Limit 

for Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 8, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alexander Montoro at (202) 482–0238 or 

Shane Subler at (202) 482–0189; AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 1, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution 

Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On August 25, 2008, the Department 

published a notice of extension of the 

time limit for the preliminary results of 

the antidumping duty review on certain 

cased pencils from the People’s 

Republic of China. See Certain Cased 

Pencils from the People’s Republic of 

China: Extension of Time Limits for 

Preliminary Results of the Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 73 FR 

49993 (August 25, 2008) (Extension 

Notice). We identified an error in the 

published version of the notice. 

Specifically, in the Extension Notice, 

the case number was incorrectly listed 

as C-570-827. The correct case number 

is A-570-827. This notice serves to 

correct the case number listed in the 

Extension Notice. 

We are issuing and publishing this 

notice in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: September 2, 2008. 

Stephen J. Claeys, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–20749 Filed 9–5–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[A–552–801] 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice 

of Preliminary Results of the New 

Shipper Review and Fourth 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Partial Rescission of the 

Fourth Administrative Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(‘‘Department’’) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on certain 

frozen fish fillets from the Socialist 

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

Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: 

Certain Frozen Fish Fillets From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 68 FR 

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

preliminarily find that QVD Food 

Company Ltd. (‘‘QVD’’) and Binh An 

Seafood Joint Stock Co. (‘‘Binh An’’) did 

not sell subject merchandise at less than 

normal value (‘‘NV’’) during the period 

of review (‘‘POR’’), August 1, 2006, 

through July 31, 2007. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 8, 

2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Alan Ray (QVD) and Matthew Renkey 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES