Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58115 

1The petitioner is the Crawfish Processors 

Alliance (CPA). 

consumption on a color-specific basis. 

Max Fortune stated it does not maintain 

records for dye and ink consumption in 

the papermaking and paper printing 

stages of production on a color specific 

basis. Thus, Max Fortune could not 

report ink and dye consumption data in 

a manner requested by the Department. 

As a result, we determined that it was 

necessary to apply facts otherwise 

available to Max Fortune. Petitioner 

argues that we should apply an adverse 

inference, pursuant to section 776(b) of 

the Act, to Max Fortune’s calculation. 

However, we have concluded that Max 

Fortune acted to the best of its ability in 

providing responses to the Department’s 

questionnaires. Thus, consistent with 

the Department’s application in the 

previous segment of the instant review 

and in the Preliminary Results, we will 

not apply an adverse inference, but will 

continue to apply the average Indian 

import values for three dye types, which 

are commonly used in the production of 

tissue paper, to value the aggregate 

amount of dye consumed in the 

production of the subject tissue paper. 

See Issues and Decision Memorandum 

at Comment 1 for a detailed analysis. 

Additionally, in the Preliminary 

Results, the Department invited 

comments from interested parties 

regarding whether or not it should alter 

its requirements for reporting ink and 

dye consumption in future segments. 

See Preliminary Results, 73 FR at 18501. 

Upon analyzing the comments received 

from interested parties with respect to 

the reporting requirement for ink and 

dye consumption on a CONNUMspecific basis, we have determined that 

the record does not contain sufficient 

evidence necessary to revise the modelmatch criteria. Therefore, we will not 

make any changes, at this time, to the 

model-match criteria and continue to 

require that companies in future 

segments report ink and dye 

consumption on a CONNUM-specific 

basis. See Issues and Decision 

Memorandum at Comment 2, for a 

detailed analysis. 

Final Results of Review 

We determine that the following 

antidumping duty margin exists: 

CERTAIN TISSUE PAPER FROM THE

PRC INDIVIDUALLY REVIEWED EXPORTERS

Max Fortune Industrial Ltd ........... 0.00% 

The Department will disclose 

calculations performed for these final 

results to the parties within five days of 

the date of publication of this notice in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). 

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. Pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.212(b)(1), we will calculate 

importer-specific (or customer) ad 

valorem duty assessment rates based on 

the ratio of the total amount of the 

dumping margins calculated for the 

examined sales to the total entered 

value of those same sales. 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 review is above de 

minimis. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of these final results of this 

administrative review for all shipments 

of the subject merchandise 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 Max 

Fortune, the Department has calculated 

a zero margin for these final results, and 

therefore no cash deposit will be 

required for this company; (2) for 

previously investigated or reviewed PRC 

and non-PRC exporters not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cash 

deposit rate will continue to be the 

exporter-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise that 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, including those 

companies for which this review has 

been rescinded, the cash deposit rate 

will be the PRC-wide rate of 112.64 

percent; and (4) for all non-PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not received their own rate, the 

cash deposit rate will be the rate 

applicable to the PRC exporters that 

supplied that non-PRC exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until publication 

of the final results of the next 

administrative review. 

Notification to Interested Parties 

This notice also serves as the final 

reminder to importers of their 

responsibility under19 CFR 351.402(f) 

to file a certificate regarding the 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

prior to liquidation of the relevant 

entries during this review period. 

Failure to comply with this requirement 

could result in the Secretary’s 

presumption that reimbursement of 

antidumping duties occurred and in the 

subsequent assessment of double 

antidumping duties. 

This notice also serves as the only 

reminder to parties subject to 

administrative protective order (‘‘APO’’) 

of their responsibility concerning the 

return/destruction or conversion to 

judicial protective order of proprietary 

information disclosed under APO in 

accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 

Failure to comply is a violation of the 

APO. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are published in accordance with 

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

Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5). 

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

APPENDIX I 

General Issues 

Comment 1: Reporting of Ink and Dye 

Consumption 

Comment 2: Reporting Requirements for Ink 

and Dye 

Comment 3: Steam Coal Surrogate Value 

Comment 4: Labor Surrogate Value 

Comment 5: Treatment of Negative Dumping 

Margins (‘‘Zeroing’’) 

[FR Doc. E8–23588 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

(A–570–848) 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Intent 

to Rescind Review in Part 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: In response to timely requests 

from one exporter and the petitioner,1

the Department of Commerce 

(Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on freshwater 

crawfish tail meat from the People’s 

Republic of China (PRC). The period of 

review (POR) is September 1, 2006, 

through August 31, 2007. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
58116 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 

2This company is also known as China Kingdoma 

Import & Export Co., Ltd., and Zhongda Import and 

Export Co. Ltd. per the October 1, 2007, submission 

of the CPA. 

3On July 23, 2008, the Department rescinded this 

review with respect to Anhui, Jingdezhen, and 

Xuzhou in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). 

See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China: Notice of Partial 

Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 42771 (July 23, 2008). 

We have preliminarily determined 

that sales have not been made below 

normal value by the exporter 

participating in the administrative 

review. If these preliminary results are 

adopted in our final results of this 

review, we will instruct U.S. Customs 

and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate 

entries of merchandise exported by 

Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture 

Developing Co., Ltd., during the POR 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

We invite interested parties to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

Parties who submit comments in this 

review are requested to submit with 

each argument (1) a statement of the 

issue and (2) a brief summary of the 

argument. 

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dmitry Vladimirov or Minoo Hatten, 

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) 482–0665 and (202) 

482–1690, respectively. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On September 15, 1997, the 

Department published an amended final 

determination and antidumping duty 

order on freshwater crawfish tail meat 

from the PRC. See Notice of Amendment 

to Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty 

Order: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

From the People’s Republic of China, 62 

FR 48218 (September 15, 1997). On 

September 4, 2007, the Department 

published a notice of opportunity to 

request an administrative review of the 

order. See Antidumping or 

Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or 

Suspended Investigation; Opportunity 

to Request Administrative Review, 72 

FR 50657 (September 4, 2007). 

On September 28, 2007, Xuzhou 

Jinjiang Foodstuffs Co., Ltd. (Xuzhou), 

an exporter and producer of crawfish 

tail meat in the PRC, requested an 

administrative review. On October 1, 

2007, the petitioner requested an 

administrative review of the following 

10 exporters and/or producers: Anhui 

Tongxin Aquatic Product & Food Co., 

Ltd. (Anhui); China Kingdom Import & 

Export Co., Ltd.2 (China Kingdom); 

Jingdezhen Garay Foods Co., Ltd. 

(Jingdezhen); Qingdao Jinyongxiang 

Aquatic Foods Co., Ltd. (Aquatic 

Foods); Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., 

Ltd. (Qingdao Seafood); Shanghai Now 

Again International Trading Co., Ltd. 

(Shanghai Now Again); Xiping Opeck 

Food Co., Ltd. (Xiping Opeck); Xuzhou; 

Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture 

Developing Co., Ltd. (Hi-King); 

Yancheng Yao Seafood Co., Ltd. 

(Yancheng Seafood). On October 17, 

2007, the CPA withdrew its requests for 

administrative reviews for China 

Kingdom, Aquatic Foods, Qingdao 

Seafood, and Yancheng Seafood. 

On October 31, 2007, based on timely 

requests for an administrative review, 

the Department published a notice of 

initiation of an administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

freshwater crawfish tail meat from the 

PRC. See Initiation of Antidumping and 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Reviews, 72 FR 61621 (October 31, 

2007). The review was initiated with 

respect to Anhui, Jingdezhen, Shanghai 

Now Again, Xiping Opeck, Xuzhou, and 

Hi-King.3

The Department extended the 

deadline for the preliminary results of 

this review from June 1, 2008, to 

September 29, 2008. See Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Notice of Extension 

of Time Limit for the Preliminary 

Results of the Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 73 FR 32289 

(June 6, 2008), and Freshwater Crawfish 

Tail Meat from the People’s Republic of 

China: Notice of Extension of Time 

Limit for the Preliminary Results of the 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review, 73 FR 43913 (July 29, 2008). 

The POR is September 1, 2006, 

through August 31, 2007. We are 

conducting this review in accordance 

with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 

1930, as amended (the Act). 

Scope of Order 

The product covered by this 

antidumping duty order is freshwater 

crawfish tail meat, in all its forms 

(whether washed or with fat on, 

whether purged or unpurged), grades, 

and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or 

chilled; and regardless of how it is 

packed, preserved, or prepared. 

Excluded from the scope of the order are 

live crawfish and other whole crawfish, 

whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. 

Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of 

any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater 

crawfish tail meat is currently 

classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff 

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) 

under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 

1605.40.10.90, which are the HTSUS 

numbers for prepared foodstuffs, 

indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and 

other, as introduced by the CBP in 2000, 

and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 

0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for 

fish and crustaceans in general. The 

HTSUS subheadings are provided for 

convenience and customs purposes 

only. The written description of the 

scope of this order is dispositive. 

Intent to Rescind Review in Part 

Record evidence indicates that 

Shanghai Now Again and Xiping Opeck 

did not have any exports of subject 

merchandise during the POR. See the 

December 12, 2007, submission of 

Shanghai Now Again and Xiping Opeck. 

Moreover, we have reviewed the CBP 

entry data for the POR and found no 

evidence of exports from these two 

entities. See Memorandum to File 

entitled ‘‘Placement of Certain Import 

Data from the U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection Automated Commercial 

System on the Record of the 

Administrative Review,’’ dated July 9, 

2008. Additionally, on February 12, 

2008, we made a no-shipments inquiry 

to CBP, requesting that, if any CBP 

import office has contrary information, 

appraising officers should report this 

information within 10 days of receipt of 

the message. To date, we have not 

received any evidence that these two 

entities had any shipments to the 

United States of subject merchandise 

during the POR. Therefore, pursuant to 

19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), the Department 

intends to rescind this review in part 

with respect to Shanghai Now Again 

and Xiping Opeck. 

Duty Absorption 

Section 751(a)(4) of the Act states 

that, during any administrative review 

initiated two or four years after the 

publication of an antidumping duty 

order under section 736(a) of the Act, if 

requested, the administering authority 

shall determine whether antidumping 

duties have been absorbed by a foreign 

producer or exporter subject to the order 

if the subject merchandise is sold in the 

United States through an importer who 

is affiliated with such foreign producer 

or exporter. Additionally, section 

351.213(j)(1) of the Department’s 

regulations states that, during any 

administrative review covering all or 

part of a period falling between the first 

and second or third and fourth 

anniversary of the publication of a 

determination under 19 CFR 351.218(d) 

(sunset review), if requested by a 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58117 

4See Memorandum to Howard Smith from Carole 

Showers entitled ‘‘Administrative Review of 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s 

Republic of China: Request for a List of Surrogate 

Countries,’’ dated January 15, 2008. 

5See Memorandum to Laurie Parkhill, Office 

Director, AD/CVD Enforcement 5, entitled 

‘‘Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Selection of a Surrogate 

Country,’’ dated September 29, 2008 (SurrogateCountry Memorandum). 

6See the March 7, 2008, submission by the CPA 

regarding Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

PRC: Surrogate Value Data. See Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s Republic of 

China: Preliminary Results and Partial Rescission of 

the 2005-2006 Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Preliminary Intent to Rescind 2005- 

2006 New Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 57288 (October 

9, 2007) (unchanged in Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat from the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Rescission of the 2005-2006 New Shipper Reviews, 

73 FR 20249 (April 15, 2008)). For an example of 

a previous segment of the proceeding where this 

source was used, see Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

From the People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and 

Preliminary Intent to Rescind 2005-2006 New 

Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 57288 (October 9, 2007) 

(unchanged in Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 2005-2006 Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Rescission of the 

2005-2006 New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 20249 

(April 15, 2008)). 

7See Surrogate-Country Memorandum. 

8See Memorandum to Barbara E. Tillman from 

Christian Hughes and Adina Teodorescu through 

Maureen Flannery re: Surrogate Valuation of Shell 

Scrap: Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the 

People’s Republic of China, Administrative Review 

9/1/00-8/31/01 and New Shipper Reviews 9/1/00- 

8/31/01 and 9/1/00-10/15/01 (August 5, 2002), 

which was placed on the record of this review. 

domestic interested party within 30 

days of the date of publication of the 

notice of initiation of the review, the 

Secretary will determine whether 

antidumping duties have been absorbed 

by an exporter or producer subject to the 

review if the subject merchandise is 

sold in the United States through an 

importer that is affiliated with such 

exporter or producer. 

In a letter dated November 29, 2007, 

the petitioner requested that the 

Department conduct a duty-absorption 

review of Jingdezhen, Shanghai Now 

Again, Xiping Opeck, Anhui, Xuzhou, 

and Hi-King. As stated above, we have 

rescinded or are announcing our intent 

to rescind in part the review with 

respect to Jingdezhen, Shanghai Now 

Again, Xiping Opeck, Anhui, and 

Xuzhou. Thus, we will not make a dutyabsorption determination with respect 

to these companies. 

With respect to Hi-King, we find that, 

although the instant review was not 

initiated two or four years after the date 

of publication of the antidumping duty 

order, part of this administrative review 

falls between the third and fourth 

anniversary of the publication of a 

determination under 19 CFR 351.218(d) 

(sunset review). See Final Results of 

Expedited Sunset Review: Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat From the People’s 

Republic of China, 67 FR 72645 

(December 6, 2002). There is no record 

evidence indicating that the sole 

remaining respondent in this review, 

Hi-King, sold subject merchandise in 

the United States through an affiliated 

importer. Thus, according to section 

751(a)(4) of the Act and for the reason 

stated above, we have not investigated 

whether Hi-King absorbed duties. 

Non-Market-Economy Country Status 

The Department considers the PRC to 

be a non-market-economy (NME) 

country. In accordance with section 

771(18)(C)(i) of the Act, any 

determination that a country is an NME 

country shall remain in effect until 

revoked by the administering authority. 

See Brake Rotors From the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 2004/2005 

Administrative Review and Notice of 

Rescission of 2004/2005 New Shipper 

Review, 71 FR 66304 (November 14, 

2006). None of the parties to this 

proceeding has contested NME 

treatment for the PRC. Therefore, in 

these preliminary results of review, we 

have treated the PRC as an NME country 

and applied our current NME 

methodology in accordance with section 

773(c) of the Act. 

In antidumping proceedings involving 

NME countries, pursuant to section 

773(c)(1) of the Act, the Department 

generally bases normal value on the 

value of the NME producer’s factors of 

production (FOP). In accordance with 

section 773(c)(4) of the Act, in valuing 

the FOP, the Department uses, to the 

extent possible, the prices or costs of 

FOP in one or more market-economy 

countries that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

NME country and which are significant 

producers of merchandise comparable 

to the subject merchandise. 

The Department has determined that 

India, Indonesia, the Philippines, 

Colombia, and Thailand are countries 

that are at a level of economic 

development comparable to that of the 

PRC.4 While none of these countries is 

a significant producer of freshwater 

crawfish tail meat,5 India does have a 

seafood-processing industry that is 

comparable to the crawfish industry 

with respect to factory overhead, selling, 

general, and administrative (SG&A) 

expenses, and profit. Therefore, we have 

selected India as the primary surrogate 

country in which to value all inputs 

with the exception of live crawfish, the 

primary input, and the by-product, 

crawfish scrap shell. Because India does 

not have a fresh-crawfish industry 

(although it has a sea crawfish industry) 

and we have determined that other 

forms of seafood are not sufficiently 

comparable to crawfish to serve as 

surrogates for live crawfish, we have 

valued live crawfish using the data 

submitted by the CPA and the Louisiana 

Department of Agriculture and Forestry, 

which was obtained from the same 

source that was used to value live 

crawfish in several previous segments of 

this proceeding.6 Both parties submitted 

data on imports of live crawfish from 

Portugal into Spain as reported by 

Agencia Tributaria, the Spanish 

government agency response for trade 

statistics. Spain is a significant producer 

of comparable merchandise, i.e., whole 

processed crawfish, and there are 

publicly available import statistics for 

Spain that are contemporaneous with 

the POR.7

We have selected Indonesia as a 

secondary surrogate country for 

purposes of valuing the crawfish shell 

by-product because there are no 

appropriate Indian surrogate values for 

crawfish shell by-product on the record 

of this review. We find that Indonesia is 

at a level of economic development 

comparable to the PRC, it has significant 

production of dried crab and shrimp 

shells, merchandise comparable to the 

shell by-product, and has publicly 

available data, i.e., a public price quote 

from an Indonesian company that has 

been used in prior segments of this 

proceeding.8 No other parties 

commented on the selection of surrogate 

values. 

Separate Rates 

In proceedings involving NME 

countries, the Department has a 

rebuttable presumption that all 

companies within the country are 

subject to government control and thus 

should be assessed a single antidumping 

duty rate. It is the Department’s policy 

to assign all exporters of merchandise 

subject to a proceeding involving an 

NME country this single rate unless an 

exporter can demonstrate that it is 

sufficiently independent so as to be 

entitled to a separate rate. The 

Department assigns separate rates in 

NME proceedings only if respondents 

can demonstrate the absence of both de 

jure and de facto government control 

over export activities under a test 

developed by the Department and 

described in Final Determination of 

Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers 

from the People’s Republic of China, 56 

FR 20588 (May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), and 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
58118 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide 

from the People’s Republic of China, 59 

FR 22585 (May 2, 1994) (Silicon 

Carbide). 

The Department’s separate-rate test is 

used to determine whether an exporter 

and/or producer is independent from 

government control and does not 

consider, in general, macroeconomic/ 

border-type controls, e.g., export 

licenses, quotas, and minimum export 

prices, particularly if these controls are 

imposed to prevent dumping. See 

Notice of Final Determination of Sales 

at Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms from the People’s 

Republic of China, 63 FR 72255, 72256 

(December 31, 1998) (Mushrooms). The 

test focuses, rather, on controls over the 

investment, pricing, and output 

decision-making process at the 

individual firm level. See Mushrooms, 

63 FR at 72256 (citing Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less than Fair 

Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon 

Steel Plate From Ukraine, 62 FR 61754, 

61758 (November 19, 1997), and 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished. from 

the People’s Republic of China: Final 

Results of Antidumping Administrative 

Review, 62 FR 61276, 61279 (November 

17, 1997)). 

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; (2) any legislative 

enactments decentralizing control of 

companies; (3) other formal measures by 

the government decentralizing control 

of companies. See Sparklers, 56 FR at 

20589. Hi-King stated that it is an 

independent legal entity and provided 

copies of its business license, which 

allows the company to engage in the 

exportation of freshwater crawfish tail 

meat. See the December 21, 2007, 

submission by Hi-King at 7. Hi-King 

also reported that no export quotas 

apply to crawfish. See the December 21, 

2007, submission by Hi-King at 2–3, 5, 

and Exhibit A–6. Prior verifications 

have confirmed that there are no 

commodity-specific export licenses 

required and no quotas for the seafood 

category ‘‘Other,’’ which includes 

crawfish, in China’s Tariff and NonTariff Handbook for 1996. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From 

The People’s Republic of China; 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review, 64 FR 8543 (February 22, 1999) 

(unchanged in Freshwater Crawfish Tail 

Meat From the People’s Republic of 

China; Final Results of New Shipper 

Review, 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 1999)). 

In addition, we have confirmed 

previously that freshwater crawfish tail 

meat is not on the list of commodities 

with planned quotas in the 1992 PRC 

Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic 

Cooperation document entitled 

Temporary Provisions for 

Administration of Export Commodities. 

See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat 

From The People’s Republic of China; 

Preliminary Results of New Shipper 

Review, 64 FR 8543, 8544 (February 22, 

1999) (unchanged in Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China; Final Results of New 

Shipper Review, 64 FR 27961 (May 24, 

1999)). We found no evidence of de jure 

governmental control over Hi-King’s 

exportation of freshwater crawfish tail 

meat. 

Moreover, the Department has found 

previously that the Company Law of the 

People’s Republic of China, made 

effective on July 1, 1994, with the 

amended version promulgated on 

August 28, 2004, states that a company 

is an enterprise legal person, that 

shareholders shall assume liability 

towards the company to the extent of 

their shareholdings, and that the 

company shall be liable for its debts to 

the extent of all its assets. See 

Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat From the 

People’s Republic of China: Preliminary 

Results and Partial Rescission of the 

2005–2006 Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review and Preliminary 

Intent to Rescind 2005–2006 New 

Shipper Reviews, 72 FR 57288 (October 

9, 2007) (unchanged in Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Final Results and 

Partial Rescission of the 2005–2006 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

Review and Rescission of the 2005–2006 

New Shipper Reviews, 73 FR 20249 

(April 15, 2008)). Additionally, certain 

laws which were placed on the record 

of this review also indicate a lack of de 

jure government control. Hi-King 

provided copies of the PRC’s Enterprise 

Legal Person Registration 

Administrative Regulations, which 

allows companies with a business 

license to make deals, enter into 

contracts, open bank accounts, and 

conduct business activities. See the 

December 21, 2007, submission by HiKing at 3, 5–6, and Exhibit A–3. Hi-King 

also submitted copies of the Foreign 

Trade Law of the PRC, which identifies 

the rights and responsibilities of 

organizations engaged in foreign trade, 

grants autonomy to foreign-trade 

operators in management decisions and 

establishes the foreign trade operator’s 

accountability for profits and losses. See 

the December 21, 2007, submission by 

Hi-King at 4 and Exhibit A-5. Based on 

the foregoing, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that there is 

an absence of de jure governmental 

control over the export activities of HiKing. 

Absence of De Facto Control 

Typically the Department considers 

the following four factors in evaluating 

whether each respondent is subject to 

de facto governmental control of its 

export functions: (1) whether the export 

prices are set by, or are subject to the 

approval of, a governmental agency; (2) 

whether the respondent has authority to 

negotiate and sign contracts and other 

agreements; (3) whether the respondent 

has autonomy from the government in 

making decisions regarding the 

selection of management; (4) whether 

the respondent retains the proceeds of 

its export sales and makes independent 

decisions regarding disposition of 

profits or financing of losses. See Silicon 

Carbide, 59 FR at 22586–87; 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 considers an 

analysis of de facto control to be critical 

in determining whether a respondent is, 

in fact, subject to a degree of 

governmental control that would 

preclude the Department from assigning 

the respondent a separate rate. 

Hi-King has asserted the following: (1) 

it establishes its own export prices; (2) 

it negotiates contracts without guidance 

from any governmental entities or 

organizations; (3) it makes its own 

personnel decisions; (4) it retains the 

proceeds of its export sales, uses profits 

according to its business needs, and has 

the authority to sell its assets and to 

obtain loans. Based upon the record 

information, the Department has 

preliminarily determined that there is 

an absence of de facto governmental 

control over the export activities of HiKing. Given that the Department has 

found that Hi-King operates free of de 

jure and de facto governmental control, 

it has preliminarily determined that HiKing has satisfied the criteria for a 

separate rate. 

U.S. Price 

In accordance with section 772(a) of 

the Act, we based Hi-King’s U.S. price 

on export price because the first sales to 

unaffiliated purchasers were made prior 

to importation and constructed export 

price was not otherwise warranted by 

the facts on the record. In accordance 

with section 772(c) of the Act, we 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58119 

9We based the values of the FOPs on surrogate 

values (see ‘‘Selected Surrogate Values’’ section 

below). 

calculated export price by deducting, 

where applicable, foreign inland freight 

expenses and foreign brokerage and 

handling expenses from the starting 

price (gross unit price) charged to the 

first unaffiliated customer in the United 

States. We based all movement expenses 

on surrogate values because a PRC 

company provided the movement 

services (see the ‘‘Normal Value’’ 

section of this notice for further details). 

Normal Value 

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

that the Department shall determine 

normal value using an FOP 

methodology if the merchandise is 

exported from an NME country and the 

available information does not permit 

the calculation of normal value using 

home-market prices, third-country 

prices, or constructed value under 

section 773(a) of the Act. The 

Department uses an FOP methodology 

because the presence of government 

controls on various aspects of NMEs 

renders price comparisons and the 

calculation of production costs invalid 

under its normal methodologies. See 

Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts 

Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review and Notice 

of Intent to Rescind in Part, 70 FR 

39744, 39754 (July 11, 2005) 

(unchanged in Tapered Roller Bearings 

and Parts Thereof, Finished and 

Unfinished, from the People’s Republic 

of China: Final Results of 2003–2004 

Administrative Review and Partial 

Rescission of Review, 71 FR 2517 

(January 17, 2006 )). Thus, we 

calculated normal value by adding 

together the value of the FOP, general 

expenses, profit, and packing costs.9

Specifically, we valued material, labor, 

energy, and packing by multiplying the 

amount of the factor consumed in 

producing the subject merchandise by 

the average unit surrogate value of the 

factor. In addition, we added freight 

costs to the surrogate costs that we 

calculated for material inputs. We 

calculated freight costs by multiplying 

surrogate freight rates by the shorter of 

the reported distance from the domestic 

supplier to the factory that produced the 

subject merchandise or the distance 

from the nearest seaport to the factory 

that produced the subject merchandise, 

as appropriate. This adjustment is in 

accordance with the decision by the 

United States Court of Appeals for the 

Federal Circuit in Sigma Corp. v. United 

States, 117 F.3d 1401, 1407–1408 (Fed. 

Cir. 1997). We increased the calculated 

costs of the FOP for surrogate general 

expenses and profit. See Memorandum 

to the File, entitled ‘‘2006–2007 

Administrative Review of Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China: Factor Valuation,’’ 

dated September 29, 2008 (Factor-Value 

Memorandum). 

Surrogate Values 

In selecting surrogate values, we 

followed, to the extent practicable, our 

practice of choosing publicly available 

values which are non-export averages, 

representative of a range of prices in 

effect during the POR, or over a period 

as close as possible in time to the POR, 

product-specific, and tax-exclusive. See, 

e.g., Notice of Preliminary 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value, Negative Preliminary 

Determination of Critical Circumstances 

and Postponement of Final 

Determination: Certain Frozen and 

Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the 

Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 69 FR 

42672, 42682 (July 16, 2004) 

(unchanged in 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)). We 

also considered the quality of the source 

of surrogate information in selecting 

surrogate values. See Manganese Metal 

From the People’s Republic of China; 

Final Results and Partial Rescission of 

Antidumping Duty Administrative 

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

Where we could only obtain surrogate 

values that were not contemporaneous 

with the POR, we inflated the surrogate 

values using, where appropriate, the 

Indian Wholesale Price Index (Indian 

WPI) and the Indonesian Wholesale 

Price Index (Indonesian WPI) as 

published in the International Financial 

Statistics of the International Monetary 

Fund. See Memorandum to the File 

entitled ‘‘Fresh Crawfish Tail Meat from 

the People’s Republic of China: 

Surrogate-Value Memorandum,’’ dated 

September 29, 2008 (Surrogate-Value 

Memo). 

In calculating surrogate values from 

import statistics and in accordance with 

our practice, we disregarded statistics 

for imports from NME countries and 

countries deemed to maintain broadly 

available, non-industry-specific 

subsidies which may benefit all 

exporters to all export markets (i.e., 

Indonesia, South Korea, and Thailand). 

See, e.g., Final Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value: Certain 

Automotive Replacement Glass 

Windshields From The People’s 

Republic of China, 67 FR 6482 

(February 12, 2002), and accompanying 

Issues and Decision Memorandum at 

Comment 1. See also Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 68 FR 66800, 66808 (November 

28, 2003) (unchanged in Notice of Final 

Determination of Sales at Less Than 

Fair Value and Negative Final 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Color Television 

Receivers From the People’s Republic of 

China, 69 FR 20594 (April 16, 2004)). 

Additionally, we excluded from our 

calculations imports that were labeled 

as originating from an unspecified 

country because we could not determine 

whether they were from an NME 

country. 

We used the following surrogate 

values in our margin calculations for 

these preliminary results of review. We 

valued coal and packing materials using 

September 2006–August 2007 weightedaverage Indian import values derived 

from the World Trade Atlas online 

(WTA). The Indian import statistics that 

we obtained from the WTA were 

published by the Directorate General of 

Commercial Intelligence & Statistics, 

Ministry of Commerce of India, and are 

contemporaneous with the POR. We 

valued whole live crawfish using the 

publicly available data for Spanish 

imports of whole live crawfish from 

Portugal submitted by the CPA and the 

Louisiana Department of Agriculture 

and Forestry. We valued the crawfish 

shell by-product using a 2001 price 

quote from Indonesia for wet crab and 

shrimp shells and inflated this value 

using the Indonesian WPI to make it 

contemporaneous with the POR. 

We valued water using data from the 

Maharashtra Industrial Development 

Corporation (www.midcindia.org) 

because this source includes a wide 

range of industrial water tariffs. 

Specifically, this source provides 386 

industrial water rates within the 

Maharashtra province from June 2003 

(193 for the ‘‘inside industrial areas’’ 

usage category and 193 for the ‘‘outside 

industrial areas’’ usage category). We 

inflated the surrogate value for water 

using the Indian WPI to make it 

contemporaneous with the POR. We 

valued electricity using price data for 

small, medium, and large industries, as 

published by the Central Electricity 

Authority of the Government of India in 

its publication entitled Electricity Tariff 

& Duty and Average Rates of Electricity 

Supply in India, dated July 2006. These 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
58120 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 

electricity rates represent actual 

country-wide, publicly available 

information on tax-exclusive electricity 

rates charged to industries in India. 

Because the electricity rates are not 

contemporaneous with the POR, we 

inflated the values using Indian WPI to 

make it contemporaneous with the POR. 

We valued non-refrigerated truck 

freight expenses using a per-unit 

average rate calculated from data on the 

following website: http:// 

www.infobanc.com/logistics/ 

logtruck.htm. The logistics section of 

this website contains inland freight 

truck rates between many large Indian 

cities. We valued refrigerated-truck 

freight expenses based on price 

quotations for April 2004 from CTC 

Freight Carriers of Delhi, India, placed 

on the record of the antidumping 

investigation of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the PRC. As the 

values for both non-refrigerated and 

refrigerated truck freight expenses are 

not contemporaneous with the POR, we 

inflated/deflated, as appropriate, these 

surrogate values using the Indian WPI. 

To value brokerage and handling, we 

used publicly summarized versions of 

the average values for brokerage and 

handling expenses reported in the 

following sources: Agro Dutch 

Industries Ltd.’s (Agro Dutch’s) May 25, 

2005, Section C submission (taken from 

the 2004–2005 administrative review of 

the antidumping duty order on 

preserved mushrooms from India); 

Kejriwal Paper Ltd.’s (Kejriwal’s) 

January 9, 2006, Section C submission 

(taken from the antidumping 

investigation of certain lined paper from 

India); Essar Steel Ltd.’s (Essar’s) 

February 28, 2005, Section C 

submission (taken from the 2003–2004 

administrative review of the 

antidumping duty order on carbon steel 

flat products from India). See Certain 

Preserved Mushrooms From India: Final 

Results of Antidumping Duty 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 10646 

(March 2, 2006); see also Notice of 

Preliminary Determination of Sales at 

Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of 

Final Determination, and Affirmative 

Preliminary Determination of Critical 

Circumstances in Part: Certain Lined 

Paper Products From India, 71 FR 19706 

(April 17, 2006), unchanged in Notice of 

Final Determination of Sales at Less 

Than Fair Value, and Negative 

Determination of Critical 

Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India, 71 FR 45012 

(August 8, 2006), and Certain hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Preliminary Results of Antidumping 

Duty Administrative Review, 71 FR 

2018, 2021 (January 12, 2006) 

(unchanged in Certain Hot-Rolled 

Carbon Steel Flat Products From India: 

Final Results of Antidumping 

Administrative Review, 71 FR 40694 

(July 18, 2006). Because data reported 

by Agro Dutch, Kejriwal, and Essar were 

not contemporaneous with the POR, we 

inflated the surrogate value for domestic 

brokerage and handling expenses using 

the Indian WPI. See Surrogate-Value 

Memo for further details on the 

surrogate values we used for these 

preliminary results. 

Consistent with 19 CFR 351.408(c)(3), 

we valued direct, indirect, and packing 

labor using the most recently calculated 

regression-based wage rate which relies 

on 2004 data. This wage rate can 

currently be found on the Department’s 

website on Import Administration’s 

home page, Import Library, Expected 

Wages of Selected NME Countries, 

revised in January 2007, available at 

http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/index.html. 

The source of these wage-rate data on 

the Import Administration’s website is 

the Yearbook of Labour Statistics, ILO, 

Chapter 5B: Wages in Manufacturing. 

We applied the same wage rate to all 

skill levels and types of labor reported 

by Hi-King because this regressionbased wage rate does not separate the 

labor rates into different skill levels or 

types of labor. 

We valued SG&A expenses, factory 

overhead costs, and profit using the 

2002–2003 financial statements of 

Nekkanti Sea Foods Ltd., an Indian 

seafood processor. See Factor-Value 

Memorandum. 

Currency Conversion 

We made currency conversions into 

U.S. dollars, in accordance with section 

773A(a) of the Act, based on the 

exchange rates in effect on the dates of 

the U.S. sales as certified by the Federal 

Reserve Bank. These exchange rates are 

available on the Import Administration 

web site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/ 

exchange/index.html. 

Treatment of Affiliated Parties as a 

Single Entity 

Our analysis of Hi-King’s responses to 

our questionnaires and the factual 

information on the record led us to 

determine that Hi-King and its affiliated 

producers Yancheng Seastar Seafood 

Co., Ltd., Yancheng Hi-King Frozen 

Food Co., Ltd., and Jiangxi Hi-King 

Poyang Lake Seafood Co., Ltd., should 

be treated as a single entity for the 

purpose of calculating an antidumping 

duty margin. See Memorandum to 

Laurie Parkhill, entitled ‘‘Freshwater 

Crawfish Tail Meat from the People’s 

Republic of China - Collapsing of 

Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture 

Developing Co., Ltd., and its Affiliated 

Suppliers,’’ dated June 17, 2008 

(Collapsing Memo). 

As we have found before, ‘‘{i}t is the 

Department’s long-standing practice to 

calculate a separate dumping margin for 

each manufacturer or exporter 

investigated.’’ See Final Determinations 

of Sales at Less than Fair Value; Certain 

Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products, 

Certain Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel Flat 

Products, and Certain CorrosionResistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 

from Japan, 58 FR 37154, 37159 (July 9, 

1993). Because we calculate margins on 

a company-specific basis, we must 

ensure that we review the entire 

producer or reseller, not merely a part 

of it. We review the entire entity due to 

our concerns regarding price and cost 

manipulation. See, e.g., Dongkuk Steel 

Mill Co. v. United States, Court No. 04– 

00190, slip op. 2005–75 at 15 (CIT 2005) 

(‘‘ Commerce considers both actual 

manipulation in the past and the 

possibility of future manipulation, 

which does not require evidence of 

actual manipulation during the period 

of review.’’); see also Antidumping 

Duties; Countervailing Duties; Final 

Rule, 62 FR at 27296, 27346 (May 19, 

1997) (‘‘The standard based on the 

potential for manipulation focuses on 

what may transpire in the future.’’). 

Because of this concern, we consider 

whether affiliated parties, including 

exporters and producers, should be 

treated as a single entity for purposes of 

calculating antidumping margins. When 

affiliated producers have production 

facilities for similar or identical 

products that would not require 

substantial retooling of either facility in 

order to restructure manufacturing 

priorities and there is evidence 

indicating a significant potential for the 

manipulation of price and production, 

we ‘‘collapse’’ related companies; that 

is, we treat the affiliated entities as a 

single entity for purposes of calculating 

the dumping margin. See 19 CFR 

351.401(f). See also Nihon Cement Co., 

Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 93–80 

(CIT May 25, 1993). As detailed in our 

Collapsing Memo, we find that Hi-King 

is affiliated with its producers in 

accordance with sections 771(33)(B) and 

(E) of the Act. We also find that these 

affiliated producers have production 

facilities for similar or identical 

products that would not require 

substantial retooling of either facility in 

order to restructure manufacturing 

priorities. As detailed in our Collapsing 

Memo, we find that a potential for the 

manipulation of price and production 

exists with respect to Hi-King and its 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 194 / Monday, October 6, 2008 / Notices 58121 

1Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(e)(2)(ii), because the 

Department received Navneet’s request during the 

first anniversary month after publication of the 

order, this administrative review covers entries 

from February 15, 2006, the date of suspension of 

liquidation through December 31, 2006, the end of 

the most recently completed calendar year. (The 

date of suspension of liquidation corresponds to the 

publication in the Federal Register of the Notice of 

Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty 

Determination and Preliminary Negative Critical 

Circumstances Determination: Certain Lined Paper 

Products from India, 71 FR 7916 (February 15, 

2006) (Preliminary Determination of Lined Paper 

Investigation). However, for purposes of this 

administrative review, we will analyze data 

corresponding to calendar year 2006 (January 1, 

2006, through December 31, 2006) to determine the 

subsidy rate for exports of subject merchandise 

made during the period in which liquidation of 

entries was suspended. 

affiliated producers pursuant to 19 CFR 

351.401(f)(2). Therefore, we have treated 

Hi-King and the affiliated entities in 

question as a single entity for purposes 

of this review. 

Preliminary Results of the Review 

As a result of our review, we 

preliminarily determine that the 

following percentage weighted-average 

dumping margin exists for the period 

September 1, 2006, through August 31, 

2007: 

Manufacturer/Exporter Percent 

Margin 

Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture 

Developing Co., Ltd. ............... 0.00 

Comments 

We will disclose the calculations used 

in our analysis to parties in this review 

within five days of the date of 

publication of this notice in accordance 

with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested 

parties may submit publicly available 

information to value factors no later 

than 20 days after the date of 

publication of these preliminary results 

of review. See 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(ii). 

Any interested party may request a 

hearing within 30 days of the date of 

publication of this notice. See 19 CFR 

351.310. Interested parties who wish to 

request a hearing or to participate in a 

hearing if one 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; (3) a list of 

issues to be discussed. See 19 CFR 

351.310(c). 

Issues raised in the hearing will be 

limited to those raised in the case and 

rebuttal briefs. See 19 CFR 351.310(c). 

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. See 19 

CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii). 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. See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1). 

If requested, any hearing will be held 

two days after the scheduled date for 

submission of rebuttal briefs. See 19 

CFR 351.310(d). Parties who submit 

case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this 

proceeding 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. 

See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2). 

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. See 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, 

because we calculated a margin of zero 

percent for Hi-King, we will instruct 

CBP to liquidate the entries of 

merchandise exported by Hi-King 

without regard to antidumping duties. 

Cash Deposit Requirements 

The following cash deposit 

requirements will be effective upon 

publication of the final results of this 

review for all shipments of the subject 

merchandise entered, or withdrawn 

from warehouse, for consumption on or 

after the publication date, as provided 

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

subject merchandise exported by HiKing, the cash-deposit rate will be that 

established in the final results of review; 

(2) for previously reviewed or 

investigated companies not listed above 

that have separate rates, the cashdeposit rate will continue to be the 

company-specific rate published for the 

most recent period; (3) for all other PRC 

exporters of subject merchandise which 

have not been found to be entitled to a 

separate rate, the cash-deposit rate will 

be PRC-wide rate of 223.01 percent; (4) 

for all non-PRC exporters of subject 

merchandise the cash-deposit rate will 

be the rate applicable to the PRC entity 

that supplied that exporter. These 

deposit requirements, when imposed, 

shall remain in effect until further 

notice. 

Notification to Importers 

This notice also serves as a 

preliminary reminder to importers of 

their responsibility under 19 CFR 

351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate 

regarding the reimbursement of 

antidumping duties prior to liquidation 

of the relevant entries during this 

review period. Failure to comply with 

this requirement could result in the 

Secretary’s presumption that 

reimbursement of antidumping duties 

occurred and the subsequent assessment 

of double antidumping duties. 

This administrative review and this 

notice are in accordance with sections 

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

Dated: September 29, 2008. 

David M. Spooner, 

Assistant Secretary for Import 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E8–23572 Filed 10–3–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

International Trade Administration 

[C–533–844] 

Certain Lined Paper Products From 

India: Notice of Preliminary Results of 

Countervailing Duty Administrative 

Review 

AGENCY: Import Administration, 

International Trade Administration, 

Department of Commerce. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Commerce 

(the Department) is conducting an 

administrative review of the 

countervailing duty (CVD) order on 

certain lined paper products from India 

for the period February 15, 2006, 

through December 31, 2006, the period 

of review (POR).1 For information on 

the net subsidy rate for the reviewed 

company, Navneet Publications (India) 

Limited (Navneet), see the ‘‘Preliminary 

Results of Review’’ section of this 

notice. Interested parties are invited to 

comment on these preliminary results. 

See the ‘‘Public Comment’’ section of 

this notice. 

DATES: Effective Date: October 6, 2008. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jolanta Lawska or John Conniff, AD/ 

CVD Operations, Office 3, Import 

Administration, International Trade 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, Room 4014, 14th Street and 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES